Tracking Smell Loss to Identify Healthcare Workers with SARS-CoV-2 Infection

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCW) treating COVID-19 patients are at high risk for infection and may also spread infection through their contact with vulnerable patients. Smell loss has been associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it is unknown whether monitoring for smell loss can be used to identify asymptomatic infection among high risk individuals, like HCW. MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study, tracking 473 HCW across three months to determine if smell loss could predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in this high-risk group. HCW subjects completed a longitudinal, novel behavioral at-home assessment of smell function with household items, as well as detailed symptom surveys that included a parosmia screening questionnaire, and RT-qPCR testing to identify SARSCoV-2 infection. ResultsSARS-CoV-2 was identified in 17 (3.6%) of 473 HCW. Among the 17 infected HCW, 53% reported smell loss, and were more likely to report smell loss than COVID-negative HCW on both the at-home assessment and the screening questionnaire (P < .01). 67% reported smell loss prior to having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and smell loss was reported a median of two days before testing positive. Neurological symptoms were reported more frequently among COVID-positive HCW who reported smell loss (P < .01). ConclusionsIn this prospective study of HCW, self-reported changes in smell using two different measures were predictive of COVID-19 infection. Smell loss frequently preceded a positive test and was associated with neurological symptoms.

Accuracy of Computable Phenotyping Approaches for SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Hospitalizations from the Electronic Health Record

ObjectiveReal-world data have been critical for rapid-knowledge generation throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure high-quality results are delivered to guide clinical decision making and the public health response, as well as characterize the response to interventions, it is essential to establish the accuracy of COVID-19 case definitions derived from administrative data to identify infections and hospitalizations. MethodsElectronic Health Record (EHR) data were obtained from the clinical data warehouse of the Yale New Haven Health System (Yale, primary site) and 3 hospital systems of the Mayo Clinic (validation site). Detailed characteristics on demographics, diagnoses, and laboratory results were obtained for all patients with either a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test or ICD-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) between April 1, 2020 and March 1, 2021. Various computable phenotype definitions were evaluated for their accuracy to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalizations. ResultsOf the 69,423 individuals with either a diagnosis code or a laboratory diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection at Yale, 61,023 had a principal or a secondary diagnosis code for COVID-19 and 50,355 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Among those with a positive laboratory test, 38,506 (76.5%) and 3449 (6.8%) had a principal and secondary diagnosis code of COVID-19, respectively, while 8400 (16.7%) had no COVID-19 diagnosis. Moreover, of the 61,023 patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis code, 19,068 (31.2%) did not have a positive laboratory test for SARS-CoV-2 in the EHR. Of the 20 cases randomly sampled from this latter group for manual review, all had a COVID-19 diagnosis code related to asymptomatic testing with negative subsequent test results. The positive predictive value (precision) and sensitivity (recall) of a COVID-19 diagnosis in the medical record for a documented positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 68.8% and 83.3%, respectively. Among 5,109 patients who were hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of COVID-19, 4843 (94.8%) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test within the 2 weeks preceding hospital admission or during hospitalization. In addition, 789 hospitalizations had a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19, of which 446 (56.5%) had a principal diagnosis consistent with severe clinical manifestation of COVID-19 (e.g., sepsis or respiratory failure). Compared with the cohort that had a principal diagnosis of COVID-19, those with a secondary diagnosis had a more than 2-fold higher in-hospital mortality rate (13.2% vs 28.0%, P<0.001). In the validation sample at Mayo Clinic, diagnosis codes more consistently identified SARS-CoV-2 infection (precision of 95%) but had lower recall (63.5%) with substantial variation across the 3 Mayo Clinic sites. Similar to Yale, diagnosis codes consistently identified COVID-19 hospitalizations at Mayo, with hospitalizations defined by secondary diagnosis code with 2-fold higher in-hospital mortality compared to those with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19. ConclusionsCOVID-19 diagnosis codes misclassified the SARS-CoV-2 infection status of many people, with implications for clinical research and epidemiological surveillance. Moreover, the codes had different performance across two academic health systems and identified groups with different risks of mortality. Real-world data from the EHR can be used to in conjunction with diagnosis codes to improve the identification of people infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Coast-to-coast spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States revealed by genomic epidemiology

Since its emergence and detection in Wuhan, China in late 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has spread to nearly every country around the world, resulting in hundreds of thousands of infections to date. The virus was first detected in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States in January, 2020, with subsequent COVID-19 outbreaks detected in all 50 states by early March. To uncover the sources of SARS-CoV-2 introductions and patterns of spread within the U.S., we sequenced nine viral genomes from early reported COVID-19 patients in Connecticut. Our phylogenetic analysis places the majority of these genomes with viruses sequenced from Washington state. By coupling our genomic data with domestic and international travel patterns, we show that early SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Connecticut was likely driven by domestic introductions. Moreover, the risk of domestic importation to Connecticut exceeded that of international importation by mid-March regardless of our estimated impacts of federal travel restrictions. This study provides evidence for widespread, sustained transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within the U.S. and highlights the critical need for local surveillance.

Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs

Rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is essential for controlling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Low sensitivity, exposure risks to healthcare workers, and global shortages of swabs and personal protective equipment, however, necessitate the validation of new diagnostic approaches. Saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because (1) collection is minimally invasive and can reliably be self-administered and (2) saliva has exhibited comparable sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs in detection of other respiratory pathogens, including endemic human coronaviruses, in previous studies. To validate the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection, we tested nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients and self-collected samples from healthcare workers on COVID-19 wards. When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.