BACKGROUND: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT) may influence physician decision-making. Single-center studies suggest that influenza diagnosed in association with RIDT reduces ancillary testing and antibiotic prescribing. The extent of RIDT use in US emergency departments (EDs) and their impact on patient management are unknown. We examined the use of RIDT and its effect on influenza management, using a national sample of ED visits. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annually administered survey capturing a nationally representative sample of visits to US EDs. We identified patient visits in which RIDT was performed and/or influenza was diagnosed across 3 influenza seasons (2007-2009). Ancillary testing and antibiotic and antiviral prescribing were evaluated for 2 groups of patients in whom RIDT was performed (those given or not given a diagnosis of influenza) and a third group in whom influenza was diagnosed but RIDT was not performed. RESULTS: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests were performed during 4.2 million visits. Forty-two percent of influenza diagnoses were made in association with RIDT. For patients diagnosed with influenza, ancillary test ordering was lower (45% vs 53% of visits) and there were fewer antibiotic prescriptions (11% vs 23%), and antiviral use was higher (56% vs 19%) when the diagnosis was made in association with RIDT. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza diagnoses made in association with RIDT resulted in fewer tests and antibiotic prescriptions and more frequent use of antivirals. This finding suggests that test results influence physician behavior.

Background

Epidemics of COVID-19 in student populations at universities were a key concern for the 2020-2021 school year. The University of California (UC) System developed a set of recommendations to reduce campus infection rates. SARS-CoV-2 test results are summarized for the ten UC campuses during the Fall 2020 term.

Methods

UC mitigation efforts included protocols for the arrival of students living on-campus students, non-pharmaceutical interventions, daily symptom monitoring, symptomatic testing, asymptomatic surveillance testing, isolation and quarantine protocols, student ambassador programs for health education, campus health and safety pledges, and lowered density of on-campus student housing. We used data from UC campuses, the UC Health-California Department of Public Health Data Modeling Consortium, and the U.S. Census to estimate the proportion of each campus' student populations that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and compared it to the fraction individuals aged 20-29 years who tested positive in their respective counties.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 cases in campus populations were generally low in September and October 2020, but increased in November and especially December, and were highest in early to mid-January 2021, mirroring case trajectories in their respective counties. Many students were infected during the Thanksgiving and winter holiday recesses and were detected as cases upon returning to campus. The proportion of students who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during Fall 2020 ranged from 1.2% to 5.2% for students living on campus and was similar to students living off campus. For most UC campuses the proportion of students testing positive was lower than that for the 20-29-year-old population in which campuses were located.

Conclusions

The layered mitigation approach used on UC campuses, informed by public health science and augmented perhaps by a more compliant population, likely minimized campus transmission and outbreaks and limited transmission to surrounding communities. University policies that include these mitigation efforts in Fall 2020 along with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, may alleviate some local concerns about college students returning to communities and facilitate resumption of normal campus operations and in-person instruction.

As the nation implements SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults at an unprecedented scale, it is now essential to focus on the prospect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in pediatric populations. To date, no children younger than 12 years have been enrolled in clinical trials. Key challenges and knowledge gaps that must be addressed include (1) rationale for vaccines in children, (2) possible effects of immune maturation during childhood, (3) ethical concerns, (4) unique needs of children with developmental disorders and chronic conditions, (5) health inequities, and (6) vaccine hesitancy. Because COVID-19 is minimally symptomatic in the vast majority of children, a higher acceptable risk threshold is required when evaluating pediatric clinical trials. Profound differences in innate and adaptive immunity during childhood and adolescence are known to affect vaccine responsiveness for a variety of childhood diseases. COVID-19 and the accompanying social disruption, such as the school shutdowns, has been disproportionately damaging to minority and low-income children. In this commentary, we briefly address each of these key issues, specify research gaps, and suggest a broader learning health system approach to accelerate testing and clinical trial development for an ethical and effective strategy to implement a pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as rapidly and safely as possible. IMPACT: As the US begins an unprecedented implementation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, substantial knowledge gaps have yet to be addressed regarding vaccinations in the pediatric population. Maturational changes in the immune system during childhood have influenced the effectiveness of pediatric vaccines for other diseases and conditions, and could affect SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responsiveness in children. Given that COVID-19 disease is far milder in the majority of children than in adults, the risk-benefit of a pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine must be carefully weighed. The needs of children with developmental disabilities and with chronic disease must be addressed. Minority and low-income children have been disproportionately adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; care must be taken to address issues of health equity regarding pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials and allocation. Research and strategies to address general vaccine hesitancy in communities must be addressed in the context of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

University of California Health (UCH) provided a system-wide, rapid response to the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied children crossing the southern U.S. border in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. In collaboration with multiple federal, state, and local agencies, UCH mobilized a multidisciplinary team to deliver acute general and specialty pediatric care to unaccompanied children at 2 Californian emergency intake sites (EISs). The response, which did not disrupt normal UCH operations, mobilized the capacities of the system and resulted in a safe and developmentally appropriate environment that supported the physical and mental health of migrant children during this traumatic period. The capacities of UCH's 6 academic health centers ensured access to trauma-informed medical care and culturally sensitive psychological and social support. Child life professionals provided access to exercise, play, and entertainment. Overall, 260 physicians, 42 residents and fellows, 4 nurse practitioners participated as treating clinicians and were supported by hundreds of staff across the 2 EISs. Over 5 months and across both EISs, a total of 4,911 children aged 3 to 17 years were cared for. A total of 782 children had COVID-19, most infected before arrival. Most children (3,931) were reunified with family or sponsors. Continuity of care after reunification or placement in a long-term shelter was enhanced by use of an electronic health record. The effort provided an educational experience for residents and fellows with instruction in immigrant health and trauma-informed care. The effort benefitted from UCH's recent experience of providing a system-wide response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lessons learned are reported to encourage the alignment and integration of academic health centers' capacities with federal, state, and local plans to better prepare for and respond to the accelerating need to care for those in the wake of disasters and humanitarian crises.

Background

Real-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation.

Methods

Six health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters.

Results

A total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14-90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79-96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60-89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69-93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63-91%); and in inpatient (70-97%) and emergency department (93-99%) compared to outpatient (63-92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75-94%) and kidney disease (83-95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56-93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59-3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49-1.56), and obesity (1.63-2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25-0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets.

Conclusion

Although the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.

Background Real-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation. Methods Six health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters. Results A total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14–90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79–96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60–89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69–93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63–91%); and in inpatient (70–97%) and emergency department (93–99%) compared to outpatient (63–92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75–94%) and kidney disease (83–95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56–93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59–3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49–1.56), and obesity (1.63–2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25–0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets. Conclusion Although the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.

Background As diagnostic tests for COVID-19 were broadly deployed under Emergency Use Authorization, there emerged a need to understand the real-world utilization and performance of serological testing across the United States. Methods Six health systems contributed electronic health records and/or claims data, jointly developed a master protocol, and used it to execute the analysis in parallel. We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics of serology testing among patients with RNA positive for SARS-CoV-2. Results Across datasets, we observed 930,669 individuals with positive RNA for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 35,806 (4%) were serotested within 90 days; 15% of which occurred <14 days from the RNA positive test. The proportion of people with a history of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung, or kidney disease; or presenting with shortness of breath or pneumonia appeared higher among those serotested compared to those who were not. Even in a population of people with active infection, race/ethnicity data were largely missing (>30%) in some datasets—limiting our ability to examine differences in serological testing by race. In datasets where race/ethnicity information was available, we observed a greater distribution of White individuals among those serotested; however, the time between RNA and serology tests appeared shorter in Black compared to White individuals. Test manufacturer data was available in half of the datasets contributing to the analysis. Conclusion Our results inform the underlying context of serotesting during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences observed between claims and EHR data sources–a critical first step to understanding the real-world accuracy of serological tests. Incomplete reporting of race/ethnicity data and a limited ability to link test manufacturer data, lab results, and clinical data challenge the ability to assess the real-world performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests in different contexts and the overall U.S. response to current and future disease pandemics.

Background

As diagnostic tests for COVID-19 were broadly deployed under Emergency Use Authorization, there emerged a need to understand the real-world utilization and performance of serological testing across the United States.

Methods

Six health systems contributed electronic health records and/or claims data, jointly developed a master protocol, and used it to execute the analysis in parallel. We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics of serology testing among patients with RNA positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Results

Across datasets, we observed 930,669 individuals with positive RNA for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 35,806 (4%) were serotested within 90 days; 15% of which occurred <14 days from the RNA positive test. The proportion of people with a history of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung, or kidney disease; or presenting with shortness of breath or pneumonia appeared higher among those serotested compared to those who were not. Even in a population of people with active infection, race/ethnicity data were largely missing (>30%) in some datasets-limiting our ability to examine differences in serological testing by race. In datasets where race/ethnicity information was available, we observed a greater distribution of White individuals among those serotested; however, the time between RNA and serology tests appeared shorter in Black compared to White individuals. Test manufacturer data was available in half of the datasets contributing to the analysis.

Conclusion

Our results inform the underlying context of serotesting during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences observed between claims and EHR data sources-a critical first step to understanding the real-world accuracy of serological tests. Incomplete reporting of race/ethnicity data and a limited ability to link test manufacturer data, lab results, and clinical data challenge the ability to assess the real-world performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests in different contexts and the overall U.S. response to current and future disease pandemics.