Characterizing participants who respond to text, email, phone calls, or postcards in a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple modalities and frequencies of contact are needed to maximize recruitment in many public health surveys. The purpose of this analysis is to characterize respondents to a statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing study whose participation followed either postcard, phone outreach or electronic means of invitation. In addition, we examine how participant characteristics differ based upon the number of contacts needed to elicit participation. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from participants who were randomly selected to represent Indiana residents and were invited to be tested for Covid-19 in April 2020. Participants received invitations via postcard, text/emails, and/or robocalls/texts based upon available contact information. The modality, and frequency of contacts, that prompted participation was determined by when the notification was sent and when the participant responded and subsequently registered to participate in the study. Chi square analyses were used to determine differences between groups and significant findings were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Respondents included 3,658 individuals and were stratified by postcards (7.9%), text/emails (26.5%), and robocalls/text (65.7%) with 19.7% registering after 1 contact, 47.9% after 2 contacts, and 32.4% after 3 contacts encouraging participation. Females made up 54.6% of the sample and responded at a higher rate for postcards (8.2% vs. 7.5%) and text/emails (28.1 vs. 24.6%) as compared to males (χ2 = 7.43, p = 0.025). Compared to males, females responded at a higher percentage after 1 contact (21.4 vs. 17.9%, χ2 = 7.6, p = 0.023). Those over 60 years responded most often after 2 contacts (χ2 = 27.5, p < 0.001) when compared to others at younger age groups. In regression analysis, participant sex (p = 0.036) age (p = 0.005), educational attainment (p = < 0.0001), and being motivated by "free testing" (p = 0.036) were correlated with participation in the prevalence study. DISCUSSION: Researchers should be aware that the modality of contact as well as the number of prompts used could influence differential participation in public health studies. Our findings can inform researchers developing studies that rely on selective participation by study subjects. We explore how to increase participation within targeted demographic groups using specific modalities and examining frequency of contact.

Interim Effectiveness of Updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Adults Aged ≥18 Years with Immunocompromising Conditions - VISION Network, September 2023-February 2024.

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. As with past COVID-19 vaccines, additional doses may be considered for persons with immunocompromising conditions, who are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and might have decreased response to vaccination. In this analysis, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was evaluated during September 2023-February 2024 using data from the VISION VE network. Among adults aged ≥18 years with immunocompromising conditions, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 38% in the 7-59 days after receipt of an updated vaccine dose and 34% in the 60-119 days after receipt of an updated dose. Few persons (18%) in this high-risk study population had received updated COVID-19 vaccine. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination; persons with immunocompromising conditions may get additional updated COVID-19 vaccine doses ≥2 months after the last recommended COVID-19 vaccine.

Treatment Rates for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in a Metropolitan Area: Observational Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are the 2 most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regularly publishes and updates STI Treatment Guidelines. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare treatment rates for CT and GC among public and private providers. METHODS: Data from multiple sources, including electronic health records and Medicaid claims, were linked and integrated. Cases observed during 2016-2020 were defined based on positive laboratory results. We calculated descriptive statistics and odd ratios based on characteristics of providers and patients, stratifying by public versus private providers. Univariate logistic regression models were used to examine the factors associated with recommended treatment. RESULTS: Overall, we found that 82.2% and 63.0% of initial CT and GC episodes, respectively, received Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended treatment. The public STI clinic treated more than 90% of CT and GC cases consistently across the 5-year period. Private providers were significantly less likely to treat first episodes for CT (79.6%) and GC (53.3%; P < 0.01). Other factors associated with a higher likelihood of recommended treatment included being male, being HIV positive, and identifying as Black or multiracial. Among GC cases, 10.8% received nonrecommended treatment; all CT cases with treatment occurred per guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Although these treatment rates are higher than previous studies, there remain significant gaps in STI treatment that require intervention from public health.

Conducting a Comprehensive Assessment of the Public Health Workforce: Lessons Learned and Opportunities for the Future.

Indiana was one of the earliest states to conduct a comprehensive public health workforce assessment in preparation for the use of federal funds for infrastructure strengthening. Experiences from this assessment provide insights that may be useful to other public health agencies and partners. This brief summarizes key lessons and highlights opportunities for improved workforce assessments. For example, the lack of standardized job titles within local health departments (LHDs) can be mitigated by collecting the top 3 job tasks employees engage in daily and reassigning standardized titles based on nationally collected workforce data. This facilitates comparisons across LHD employees nationally. In addition, many employees felt their job tasks did not align well with the Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) areas and capabilities, which contributed to the likely overestimation of effort. Further consideration of how to better align and/or integrate FPHS assessment within current practice is needed in addition to improved ways of assessing efforts toward FPHS.

Descriptive analysis of emergency medical services 72-hour repeat patient encounters in a single, Urban Agency.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department unscheduled return visits within 72-h of discharge, called a "bounceback", have been used as a metric of quality of care. We hypothesize that specific demographics and dispositions may be associated with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 72-h bouncebacks. METHODS: For all patient encounters within one calendar year from a large, urban EMS agency, we recorded demographics (name, date of birth, race, gender), primary impression, disposition, and vital signs for EMS encounters. A bounceback was defined as a patient, identified by matching first name, last name and date of birth, with more than one EMS encounter within 72 h. We performed descriptive statistics for patients that did and did not have a subsequent bounceback using median (interquartile range) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for age and frequency (percent) and chi square test for gender, race and run disposition. For patients with a bounceback, we describe the frequency and percentage of EMS professional primary impressions on initial encounter. RESULTS: 98,043 encounters from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, were analyzed. The median age was 50 years (IQR 32-65); 49.4% (46,147) were female and 50.7% (47,376) were White patients. 3951 encounters had a subsequent bounceback, and compared to those without bouncebacks, they were more often male patients (58.7% versus 50.2%, p < 0.001) and more commonly not transported (22.3% versus 15.5%, p < 0.001). A multivariable logistic regression model estimated the odds of bounceback were lower for females [OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.61-0.68)], Asian and Latino patients compared to White patients [OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.21-0.53) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.34-0.51)], respectively, no significant difference for Black patients compared to White patients, and higher for non-transported patients [OR 1.25 (95% CI 1.16-1.34)]. The The most common EMS primary impression for initial and subsequent encounters was mental health [576 (14.7%) and 944 (17.0%), respectively]. For subsequent encounters, the primary impression was cardiac arrest or death in 67 (1.2%) of cases. CONCLUSION: Bouncebacks were common in this single year study of a high-volume urban EMS agency. Male and non-transported patients most often experienced bouncebacks. The most common primary impression for encounters with bounceback was mental health related. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest occurred in 1 % of bounceback cases. Further study is necessary to understand the effect on patient-centered outcomes.

Findings From a Scoping Review: Presumptive Treatment for Chlamydiatrachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the United States, 2006-2021.

ABSTRACT: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are the 2 most common reported sexually transmitted infections in the United States. Current recommendations are to presumptively treat CT and/or GC in persons with symptoms or known contact. This review characterizes the literature around studies with presumptive treatment, including identifying rates of presumptive treatment and overtreatment and undertreatment rates. Of the 18 articles that met our inclusion criteria, 6 pertained to outpatient settings. In the outpatient setting, presumptive treatment rates, for both asymptomatic and symptomic patients, varied from 12% to 100%, and the percent positive of those presumptively treated ranged from 25% to 46%. Three studies also reported data on positive results in patients not presumptively treated, which ranged from 2% to 9%. Two studies reported median follow-up time for untreated, which was roughly 9 days. The remaining 12 articles pertained to the emergency setting where presumptive treatment rates, for both asymptomatic and symptomic patients, varied from 16% to 91%, the percent positive following presumptive treatment ranged from 14% to 59%. Positive results without presumptive treatment ranged from 4% to 52%. Two studies reported the percent positive without any treatment (6% and 32%, respectively) and one reported follow-up time for untreated infections (median, 4.8 days). Rates of presumptive treatment, as well as rates of overtreatment or undertreatment vary widely across studies and within care settings. Given the large variability in presumptive treatment, the focus on urban settings, and minimal focus on social determinants of health, additional studies are needed to guide treatment practices for CT and GC in outpatient and emergency settings.

Mitigation of COVID-19 at the 2021 National Collegiate Athletic Association Men's Basketball Tournament.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking regarding the risk of viral SARS-CoV-2 transmission during a large indoor sporting event involving fans utilizing a controlled environment. We sought to describe case characteristics, mitigation protocols used, variants detected, and secondary infections detected during the 2021 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Men's Basketball Tournament involving collegiate athletes from across the U.S. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data collected from March 16 to April 3, 2021, as part of a closed environment which required daily reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, social distancing, universal masking, and limited contact between tiers of participants. Nearly 3000 players, staff, and vendors participated in indoor, unmasked activities that involved direct exposure between cases and noninfected individuals. The main outcome of interest was transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus, as measured by the number of new infections and variant(s) detected among positive cases. Secondary infections were identified through contact tracing by public health officials. RESULTS: Out of 2660 participants, 15 individuals (0.56%) screened positive for SARS-CoV-2. Four cases involved players or officials, and all cases were detected before any individual played in or officiated a game. Secondary transmissions all occurred outside the controlled environment. Among those disqualified from the tournament (4 cases; 26.7%), all individuals tested positive for the Iota variant (B.1.526). All other cases involved the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7). Nearly all teams (N = 58; 85.3%) reported that some individuals had received at least one dose of a vaccine. Overall, 17.9% of participants either had at least one dose of the vaccine or possessed documented infection within 90 days of the tournament. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study of the 2021 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament closed environment, only a few cases were detected, and they were discovered in advance of potential exposure. These findings support the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for large indoor sporting events during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Successive Wave Analysis to Assess Nonresponse Bias in a Statewide Random Sample Testing Study for SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Nonresponse bias occurs when participants in a study differ from eligible nonparticipants in ways that can distort study conclusions. The current study uses successive wave analysis, an established but underutilized approach, to assess nonresponse bias in a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study. Such an approach makes use of reminders to induce participation among individuals. Based on the response continuum theory, those requiring several reminders to participate are more like nonrespondents than those who participate in a study upon first invitation, thus allowing for an examination of factors affecting participation. METHODS: Study participants from the Indiana Population Prevalence SARS-CoV-2 Study were divided into 3 groups (eg, waves) based upon the number of reminders that were needed to induce participation. Independent variables were then used to determine whether key demographic characteristics as well as other variables hypothesized to influence study participation differed by wave using chi-square analyses. Specifically, we examined whether race, age, gender, education level, health status, tobacco behaviors, COVID-19-related symptoms, reasons for participating in the study, and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates differed by wave. RESULTS: Respondents included 3658 individuals, including 1495 in wave 1 (40.9%), 1246 in wave 2 (34.1%), and 917 in wave 3 (25%), for an overall participation rate of 23.6%. No significant differences in any examined variables were observed across waves, suggesting similar characteristics among those needing additional reminders compared with early participants. CONCLUSIONS: Using established techniques, we found no evidence of nonresponse bias in a random sample with a relatively low response rate. A hypothetical additional wave of participants would be unlikely to change original study conclusions. Successive wave analysis is an effective and easy tool that can allow public health researchers to assess, and possibly adjust for, nonresponse in any epidemiological survey that uses reminders to encourage participation.

Association of Health Status and Nicotine Consumption with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates.

BACKGROUND: Much of what is known about COVID-19 risk factors comes from patients with serious symptoms who test positive. While risk factors for hospitalization or death include chronic conditions and smoking; less is known about how health status or nicotine consumption is associated with risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals who do not present clinically. METHODS: Two community-based population samples (including individuals randomly and nonrandomly selected for statewide testing, n = 8214) underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing in nonclinical settings. Each participant was tested for current (viral PCR) and past (antibody) infection in either April or June of 2020. Before testing, participants provided demographic information and self-reported health status and nicotine and tobacco behaviors (smoking, chewing, vaping/e-cigarettes). Using descriptive statistics and a bivariate logistic regression model, we examined the association between health status and use of tobacco or nicotine with SARS-CoV-2 positivity on either PCR or antibody tests. RESULTS: Compared to people with self-identified "excellent" or very good health status, those reporting "good" or "fair" health status had a higher risk of past or current infections. Positive smoking status was inversely associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Chewing tobacco was associated with infection and the use of vaping/e-cigarettes was not associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: In a statewide, community-based population drawn for SARS-CoV-2 testing, we find that overall health status was associated with infection rates. Unlike in studies of COVID-19 patients, smoking status was inversely associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. More research is needed to further understand the nature of this relationship.

Symptoms and symptom clusters associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in community-based populations: Results from a statewide epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies examining symptoms of COVID-19 are primarily descriptive and measured among hospitalized individuals. Understanding symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pre-clinical, community-based populations may improve clinical screening, particularly during flu season. We sought to identify key symptoms and symptom combinations in a community-based population using robust methods. METHODS: We pooled community-based cohorts of individuals aged 12 and older screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection in April and June 2020 for a statewide prevalence study. Main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 positivity. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for individual symptoms as well as symptom combinations. We further employed multivariable logistic regression and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine symptoms and combinations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 8214 individuals screened, 368 individuals (4.5%) were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Although two-thirds of symptoms were highly specific (>90.0%), most symptoms individually possessed a PPV <50.0%. The individual symptoms most greatly associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity were fever (OR = 5.34, p<0.001), anosmia (OR = 4.08, p<0.001), ageusia (OR = 2.38, p = 0.006), and cough (OR = 2.86, p<0.001). Results from EFA identified two primary symptom clusters most associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: (1) ageusia, anosmia, and fever; and (2) shortness of breath, cough, and chest pain. Moreover, being non-white (13.6% vs. 2.3%, p<0.001), Hispanic (27.9% vs. 2.5%, p<0.001), or living in an Urban area (5.4% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001) was associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms can help distinguish SARS-CoV-2 infection from other respiratory viruses, especially in community or urgent care settings where rapid testing may be limited. Symptoms should further be structured in clinical documentation to support identification of new cases and mitigation of disease spread by public health. These symptoms, derived from asymptomatic as well as mildly infected individuals, can also inform vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials.

Symptoms and symptom clusters associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in community-based populations: Results from a statewide epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies examining symptoms of COVID-19 are primarily descriptive and measured among hospitalized individuals. Understanding symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pre-clinical, community-based populations may improve clinical screening, particularly during flu season. We sought to identify key symptoms and symptom combinations in a community-based population using robust methods. METHODS: We pooled community-based cohorts of individuals aged 12 and older screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection in April and June 2020 for a statewide seroprevalence study. Main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 positivity. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for individual symptoms as well as symptom combinations. We further employed multivariable logistic regression and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine symptoms and combinations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 8214 individuals screened, 368 individuals (4.5%) were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Although two-thirds of symptoms were highly specific (>90.0%), most symptoms individually possessed a PPV <50.0%. The individual symptoms most greatly associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity were fever (OR=5.34, p<0.001), anosmia (OR=4.08, p<0.001), ageusia (OR=2.38, p=0.006), and cough (OR=2.86, p<0.001). Results from EFA identified two primary symptom clusters most associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: (1) ageusia, anosmia, and fever; and (2) shortness of breath, cough, and chest pain. Moreover, being non-white (13.6% vs. 2.3%, p<0.001), Hispanic (27.9% vs. 2.5%, p<0.001), or living in an Urban area (5.4% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001) was associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms can help distinguish SARS-CoV-2 infection from other respiratory viruses, especially in community or urgent care settings where rapid testing may be limited. Symptoms should further be structured in clinical documentation to support identification of new cases and mitigation of disease spread by public health. These symptoms, derived from asymptomatic as well as mildly infected individuals, can also inform vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials. RESEARCH IN CONTEXT: Evidence before this study: Using multiple journal articles queried from MEDLINE as well as a Cochrane systematic review, we examined all studies that described symptoms known to be associated with COVID-19. We further examined the guidelines from WHO and CDC on the symptoms those public health authorities consider to be associated with COVID-19. Most of the evidence comes from China, Italy, and the United States. Collectively prior research and guidance suggests there are a dozen symptoms reported by individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 in multiple countries. Symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue, anosmia, ageusia, shortness of breath, chills, myalgias, headache, sore throat, chest pain, and gastrointestinal issues. The evidence is generally of low quality as it is descriptive in nature, and it is biased towards hospitalized patients. Most studies report the proportion of patients hospitalized or testing positive for infection who report one or more symptoms within 3-14 days prior to hospitalization or infection. There has been little validation of symptoms among hospitalized or non-hospitalized patients. Furthermore, according to a Cochrane review, no studies to date assess combinations of different signs and symptoms.Added value of this study: This study employs multiple, rigorous methods to examine the ability of specific symptoms as well as symptom combinations/groups to predict laboratory-confirmed (RT-PCR) infection of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, the study is unique in its large sample drawn exclusively from community-based populations rather than hospitalized patients.Implication of all the available evidence: Combining the evidence from this study with prior research suggests that anosmia and ageusia are key symptoms that differentiate COVID-19 from influenza-like symptoms. Clinical screening protocols for COVID-19 should look for these symptoms, which are not commonly asked of patients who present to urgent care or hospital with flu-like symptoms. KEY POINTS: Important symptoms specific to COVID-19 are fever, anosmia, ageusia, and cough. Two-thirds of symptoms were highly specific (>90.0%), yet most symptoms individually possessed a PPV <50.0%. This study confirms using robust methods the key symptoms associated with COVID-19 infection, and it also identifies combinations of symptoms strongly associated with positive infection.

Population Point Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Based on a Statewide Random Sample - Indiana, April 25-29, 2020.

Population prevalence of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), varies by subpopulation and locality. U.S. studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection have examined infections in nonrandom samples (1) or seroprevalence in specific populations* (2), which are limited in their generalizability and cannot be used to accurately calculate infection-fatality rates. During April 25-29, 2020, Indiana conducted statewide random sample testing of persons aged ≥12 years to assess prevalence of active infection and presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2; additional nonrandom sampling was conducted in racial and ethnic minority communities to better understand the impact of the virus in certain racial and ethnic minority populations. Estimates were adjusted for nonresponse to reflect state demographics using an iterative proportional fitting method. Among 3,658 noninstitutionalized participants in the random sample survey, the estimated statewide point prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was 1.74% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-2.54); 44.2% of these persons reported no symptoms during the 2 weeks before testing. The prevalence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, indicating past infection, was 1.09% (95% CI = 0.76-1.45). The overall prevalence of current and previous infections of SARS-CoV-2 in Indiana was 2.79% (95% CI = 2.02-3.70). In the random sample, higher overall prevalences were observed among Hispanics and those who reported having a household contact who had previously been told by a health care provider that they had COVID-19. By late April, an estimated 187,802 Indiana residents were currently or previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (9.6 times higher than the number of confirmed cases [17,792]) (3), and 1,099 residents died (infection-fatality ratio = 0.58%). The number of reported cases represents only a fraction of the estimated total number of infections. Given the large number of persons who remain susceptible in Indiana, adherence to evidence-based public health mitigation and containment measures (e.g., social distancing, consistent and correct use of face coverings, and hand hygiene) is needed to reduce surge in hospitalizations and prevent morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Measles Outbreak Associated With International Travel, Indiana, 2011.

BACKGROUND: Endemic measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000, but imported measles cases continue to cause outbreaks. On June 20, 2011, 5 epidemiologically linked measles cases were reported to the Indiana State Department of Health. We investigated to identify additional cases and to prevent further spread. METHODS: Case findings and contact investigations during the June 3, 2011-August 13, 2011 outbreak identified measles cases, exposed persons, and exposure settings. Laboratory confirmation included measles serology and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Control measures included evaluating measles immune status and providing post-exposure prophylaxis, isolation, and quarantine. RESULTS: Fourteen confirmed measles illnesses were identified (10 [71%] females; median age, 11.5 years [range, 15 months-27 years]). The source patient was an unvaccinated US resident who recently traveled from Indonesia. Twelve patients were unvaccinated members of the source patient's extended family. Two hospitalizations and no deaths were reported. Among 868 exposed persons identified through contact investigation, 644 (74%) had documented measles immunity, 153 (18%) were lost to follow-up, and 71 (8%) lacked evidence of immunity. CONCLUSIONS: Misdiagnosis of measles in an unvaccinated patient with recent travel history to a measles-endemic region resulted in the second largest measles outbreak in the United States during 2011. Clinicians should consider measles among patients presenting with febrile rash illness and history of recent travel, and clinicians should promptly report suspected illnesses. Early identification of infectious patients, rapid public health investigation, and maintenance of high vaccine coverage are critical for the prevention and control of measles outbreaks.