Search

India with a population of 1.3 billion has a unique health care system in its different states. Mental health care varies widely across the country and this became even more apparent after the COVID-19 pandemic set in. This paper examines the various strategies in response to COVID-19 adopted by the Government of India, the health departments of the individual states, and other private players such as on-government organizations and the civil society. The cessation of many services including outpatient and inpatient care and the scarcity of medicines were serious impacts of COVID-19. The prolonged lockdown in many parts of the country impeded access to mental health care services since public transport was unavailable. This led to many relapses in persons with serious mental disorders. The emergence of new cases of psychosis and an increase in suicides were also seen. Tele consultations came to the fore and many helplines were started offering counseling and guidance regarding the availability of mental health care facilities. While these helped the urban dwellers, those in remote and rural areas were unable to use these services effectively. Many mental health wards were used for COVID-19 patients and mental health professionals were deployed for COVID-19 related duty. The severely mentally ill, the homeless mentally ill, and the elderly were especially vulnerable. Based on our experience with COVID-19, we urge a strong call for action, in terms of strengthening the primary care facilities and increasing the manpower resources to deliver mental health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on a research paper on the prevalence, incidence and mortality of delirium in the COVID-19 disease, which references a study by S. C. Shao et al., published in a 2021 issue of "Age Ageing". Topics discussed include the characteristics of delirium, the challenges facing health professionals in managing delirium in patients with COVID-19, findings on its prevalence on admission and during hospitalization, and the study's implications for care for patients with delirium.

Objectives We estimated influenza-like symptom (ILS) incidence among healthcare personnel (HCP) in four hospitals and the economic impact due to ILS in the Thai HCP population during July 2020–June 2021 (Thailand's expected 2020 influenza season), which also coincided with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods We followed HCP, in a prospective observational cohort, weekly for ≥1 of: muscle pain, cough, runny nose/nasal congestion, sore throat, or difficulty breathing. We fitted population-averaged Poisson regression models to identify factors associated with acquiring ILS and to calculate ILS incidence. We applied epidemiologic parameters to Thailand's HCP population (227 349 persons) to estimate economic impact. Results Of 2184 participants, adjusted all-cause ILS incidence was 6.1 episodes per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 3.4–10.9). Among Thailand's HCP population, 13 909 ILS episodes were estimated to occur annually and would result in US$235 135 economic loss. Controlling for study site and calendar month, factors associated with acquiring ≥1 ILS versus no ILS included being female, having asthma, and using personal protective equipment 'frequently, but not always'. Conclusions All-cause ILS resulted in considerable economic loss among Thai HCP workforce. These findings underscore the importance of public health interventions to reduce the risk of acquiring ILS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 – incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. Results A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P <.001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P <.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. Conclusions While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers' temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021. Results We observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI −0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator. Discussion We regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) declined during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies hypothesized that this was due to reduced pneumococcal transmission resulting from nonpharmaceutical interventions. We used multiple ongoing cohort surveillance projects in children <5 years to test this hypothesis. Methods The first SARS-CoV-2 cases were detected in February 2020, resulting in a full lockdown, followed by several partial restrictions. Data from ongoing surveillance projects captured the incidence dynamics of community-acquired alveolar pneumonia (CAAP), nonalveolar lower respiratory infections necessitating chest X-rays (NA-LRIs), nasopharyngeal pneumococcal carriage in nonrespiratory visits, nasopharyngeal respiratory virus detection (by polymerase chain reaction), and nationwide IPD. Monthly rates (January 2020 through February 2021 vs mean monthly rates 2016–2019 [expected rates]) adjusted for age and ethnicity were compared. Results CAAP and bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia were strongly reduced (incidence rate ratios [IRRs]:.07 and.19, respectively); NA-LRIs and nonpneumonia IPD were also reduced by a lesser magnitude (IRRs:.46 and.42, respectively). In contrast, pneumococcal carriage prevalence was only slightly reduced, and density of colonization and pneumococcal serotype distributions were similar to previous years. The decline in pneumococcus-associated disease was temporally associated with a full suppression of respiratory syncytial virus, influenza viruses, and human metapneumovirus, often implicated as co-pathogens with pneumococcus. In contrast, adenovirus, rhinovirus, and parainfluenza activities were within or above expected levels. Conclusions Reductions in pneumococcal and pneumococcus-associated diseases occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel were not predominantly related to reduced pneumococcal carriage and density but were strongly associated with the disappearance of specific respiratory viruses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Data about the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among pregnant individuals are needed to inform infection-prevention guidance and counseling for this population. Methods We prospectively followed a cohort of pregnant individuals during August 2020–March 2021 at 3 US sites. The 3 primary outcomes were incidence rates of any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic infection, and asymptomatic infection, during pregnancy during periods of SARS-CoV-2 circulation. Participants self-collected weekly midturbinate nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction testing, completed weekly illness symptom questionnaires, and submitted additional swabs with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–like symptoms. An overall SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence rate weighted by population counts of women of reproductive age in each state was calculated. Results Among 1098 pregnant individuals followed for a mean of 10 weeks, 9% (99/1098) had SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study. Population-weighted incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were 10.0 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 5.7–14.3) person-weeks for any infection, 5.7 per 1000 (1.7–9.7) for symptomatic infections, and 3.5 per 1000 (0–7.1) for asymptomatic infections. Among 96 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptom data, the most common symptoms were nasal congestion (72%), cough (64%), headache (59%), and change in taste or smell (54%); 28% had measured or subjective fever. Median symptom duration was 10 (interquartile range, 6–16) days. Conclusions Pregnant individuals in this study had a 1% risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection per week, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination and other prevention measures during pregnancy while SARS-CoV-2 is circulating in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background First severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections on Danish mink farms were reported in June 2020 and thereupon spread geographically. We provide population-level evidence on excess human incidence rates in Danish municipalities affected by disease outbreaks on mink farms and evaluate the effectiveness of two non-pharmaceutical interventions, i.e. culling of infected mink and local lockdowns. Methods We use information on SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on mink farms in 94 Danish municipalities together with data on human SARS-CoV-2 cases and tested persons in Weeks 24–51 of 2020. Difference-in-difference estimation and panel event studies for weekly human incidence rates are applied to (i) identify epidemiological trends of human SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with disease outbreaks on mink farms, and (ii) quantify the mitigating effects from the two non-pharmaceutical interventions. Results SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on mink farms in a municipality associate with an increase in weekly human incidence rates by about 75%; spatial spillover effects to neighbouring municipalities are also observed. Local lockdowns reduce human incidence rates, while culling of mink appears to be more effective in combination with a lockdown. The temporal lag between an outbreak on a mink farm and a significant increase in human incidence rates is estimated to be 1–3 weeks; lockdowns and culling of mink neutralize this effect 4–8 weeks after the initial outbreak. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 infections among farmed mink in Denmark significantly link to local human infection trends. Strict animal and human disease surveillance in regions with mink farming should be pursued internationally to mitigate future epidemic developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Urban greening may reduce loneliness by offering opportunities for solace, social reconnection and supporting processes such as stress relief. We (i) assessed associations between residential green space and cumulative incidence of, and relief from, loneliness over 4 years; and (ii) explored contingencies by age, sex, disability and cohabitation status.Methods: Multilevel logistic regressions of change in loneliness status in 8049 city-dwellers between 2013 (baseline) and 2017 (follow-up) in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia study. Associations with objectively measured discrete green-space buffers (e.g. parks) (<400, <800 and <1600 m) were adjusted for age, sex, disability, cohabitation status, children and socio-economic variables. Results were translated into absolute risk reductions in loneliness per 10% increase in urban greening.Results: The absolute risk of loneliness rose from 15.9% to 16.9% over the 4 years; however, a 10% increase in urban greening within 1.6 km was associated with lower cumulative incident loneliness [odds ratio (OR) = 0.927, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.862 to 0.996; absolute risk reduction = 0.66%]. Stronger association was observed for people living alone (OR = 0.828, 95% CI = 0.725 to 0.944). In comparison to people with <10% green space, the ORs for cumulative incident loneliness were 0.833 (95% CI = 0.695 to 0.997), 0.790 (95% CI = 0.624 to 1.000) and 0.736 (95% CI = 0.549 to 0.986) for 10-20%, 20-30% and >30% green space, respectively. Compared with the <10% green-space reference group with 13.78% incident loneliness over 4 years and conservatively assuming no impact on incident loneliness, associations translated into absolute risk reductions of 1.70%, 2.26% and 2.72% within populations with 10-20%, 20-30% and >30% green space, respectively. These associations were stronger again for people living alone, with 10-20% (OR = 0.608, 95% CI = 0.448 to 0.826), 20-30% (OR = 0.649, 95% CI = 0.436 to 0.966) and >30% (OR = 0.480, 95% CI = 0.278 to 0.829) green space within 1600 m. No age, sex or disability-related contingencies, associations with green space within 400 or 800 m or relief from loneliness reported at baseline were observed.Conclusions: A lower cumulative incidence of loneliness was observed among people with more green space within 1600 m of home, especially for people living alone. Potential biopsychosocial mechanisms warrant investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated economic crisis have placed millions of US households at risk of eviction. Evictions may accelerate COVID-19 transmission by decreasing individuals' ability to socially distance. We leveraged variation in the expiration of eviction moratoriums in US states to test for associations between evictions and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. The study included 44 US states that instituted eviction moratoriums, followed from March 13 to September 3, 2020. We modeled associations using a difference-in-difference approach with an event-study specification. Negative binomial regression models of cases and deaths included fixed effects for state and week and controlled for time-varying indicators of testing, stay-at-home orders, school closures, and mask mandates. COVID-19 incidence and mortality increased steadily in states after eviction moratoriums expired, and expiration was associated with a doubling of COVID-19 incidence (incidence rate ratio = 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 3.9) and a 5-fold increase in COVID-19 mortality (mortality rate ratio = 5.4; CI: 3.1, 9.3) 16 weeks after moratoriums lapsed. These results imply an estimated 433,700 excess cases (CI: 365,200, 502,200) and 10,700 excess deaths (CI: 8,900, 12,500) nationally by September 3, 2020. The expiration of eviction moratoriums was associated with increased COVID-19 incidence and mortality, supporting the public-health rationale for eviction prevention to limit COVID-19 cases and deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To estimate the incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD); in patients with RA treated with specific DMARDs; and the incidence of severe COVID-19 infection among hospitalized patients with RA. Methods A nationwide cohort study from Denmark between 1 March and 12 August 2020. The adjusted incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization was estimated for patients with RA; spondyloarthritis including psoriatic arthritis; connective tissue disease; vasculitides; and non-IRD individuals. Further, the incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization was estimated for patients with RA treated and non-treated with TNF-inhibitors, HCQ or glucocorticoids, respectively. Lastly, the incidence of severe COVID-19 infection (intensive care, acute respiratory distress syndrome or death) among hospital-admitted patients was estimated for RA and non-IRD sp - individudals. Results Patients with IRD (n  = 58 052) had an increased partially adjusted incidence of hospitalization with COVID-19 compared with the 4.5 million people in the general population [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.86] with strongest associations for patients with RA (n  = 29 440, HR 1.72, 95% CI: 1.29, 2.30) and vasculitides (n  = 4072, HR 1.82, 95% CI: 0.91, 3.64). There was no increased incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization associated with TNF-inhibitor, HCQ nor glucocorticoid use. COVID-19 admitted patients with RA had a HR of 1.43 (95% CI: 0.80, 2.53) for a severe outcome. Conclusion Patients with IRD were more likely to be admitted with COVID-19 than the general population, and COVID-19 admitted patients with RA could be at higher risk of a severe outcome. Treatment with specific DMARDs did not affect the risk of hospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-sanctioned prevention strategies have included frequent handwashing with soap and water, covering the mouth and nose with a mask when around others, cleaning and disinfecting maintaining a distance of at least 6 feet from others, etc. Although many of these recommendations are based upon observation and past infection control practices, it is important to combine and explore public data sets to identify predictors of infection, morbidity and mortality to develop more finely honed interventions, based on sociodemographic factors. Method Cross-sectional study of both states in the US and counties in NY state. Results Population density was found to be significantly associated with state-level coronavirus infection and mortality rate (b  = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34, 0.64, P  < .0001). States that have lower socioeconomic status, lower mean age and denser populations are associated with higher incidence rates. In regard to NY state, counties with a higher percentage of minority residents had higher COVID-19 mortality rates (b  = 2.61, 95% CI: 0.36, 4.87, P  = 0.023). Larger population cohorts were associated with lower COVID-19 mortality rates after adjusting for other variables in the model (b  = −1.39, 95% CI: −2.07, −0.71, P  < 0.001). Population density was not significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality rates after adjustment across counties in the NY state. Public ridership was not indicative of cases or mortality across states in the USA; however, it is a significant factor associated with incidence (but not mortality) in NY counties. Conclusion Population density was the only significant predictor of mortality across states in the USA. Lower mean age, lower median household incomes and more densely populated states were at higher risk of COVID-19 infection. Population density was not found to be a significant independent variable compared to minority status and socioeconomic factors in the New York epicenter. Meanwhile, public ridership was found to be a significant factor associated with incidence in New York counties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with COVID-19 attending emergency departments (EDs), before hospitalization. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 patients without PE and non-COVID-19 patients with PE were included as control groups. Adjusted comparisons for baseline characteristics, acute episode characteristics, and outcomes were made between cases and randomly selected controls (1:1 ratio). We identified 368 PE in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (4.92‰). The standardized incidence of PE in the COVID-19 population resulted in 310 per 100 000 person-years, significantly higher than that observed in the non-COVID-19 population [35 per 100 000 person-years; odds ratio (OR) 8.95 for PE in the COVID-19 population, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.51–9.41]. Several characteristics in COVID-19 patients were independently associated with PE, the strongest being D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, and chest pain (direct association) and chronic heart failure (inverse association). COVID-19 patients with PE differed from non-COVID-19 patients with PE in 16 characteristics, most directly related to COVID-19 infection; remarkably, D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, leg swelling/pain, and PE risk factors were significantly less present. PE in COVID-19 patients affected smaller pulmonary arteries than in non-COVID-19 patients, although right ventricular dysfunction was similar in both groups. In-hospital mortality in cases (16.0%) was similar to COVID-19 patients without PE (16.6%; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65–1.42; and 11.4% in a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with PE ruled out by scanner, OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97–2.27), but higher than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE (6.5%; OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66–4.51). Adjustment for differences in baseline and acute episode characteristics and sensitivity analysis reported very similar associations. Conclusions PE in COVID-19 patients at ED presentation is unusual (about 0.5%), but incidence is approximately ninefold higher than in the general (non-COVID-19) population. Moreover, risk factors and leg symptoms are less frequent, D-dimer increase is lower and emboli involve smaller pulmonary arteries. While PE probably does not increase the mortality of COVID-19 patients, mortality is higher in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background epidemiological data on COVID-19 infection in care homes are scarce. We analysed data from a large provider of long-term care for older people to investigate infection and mortality during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods cohort study of 179 UK care homes with 9,339 residents and 11,604 staff. We used manager-reported daily tallies to estimate the incidence of suspected and confirmed infection and mortality in staff and residents. Individual-level electronic health records from 8,713 residents were used to model risk factors for confirmed infection, mortality and estimate attributable mortality. Results 2,075/9,339 residents developed COVID-19 symptoms (22.2% [95% confidence interval: 21.4%; 23.1%]), while 951 residents (10.2% [9.6%; 10.8%]) and 585 staff (5.0% [4.7%; 5.5%]) had laboratory-confirmed infections. The incidence of confirmed infection was 152.6 [143.1; 162.6] and 62.3 [57.3; 67.5] per 100,000 person-days in residents and staff, respectively. Sixty-eight percent (121/179) of care homes had at least one COVID-19 infection or COVID-19-related death. Lower staffing ratios and higher occupancy rates were independent risk factors for infection. Out of 607 residents with confirmed infection, 217 died (case fatality rate: 35.7% [31.9%; 39.7%]). Mortality in residents with no direct evidence of infection was twofold higher in care homes with outbreaks versus those without (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.2 [1.8; 2.6]). Conclusions findings suggest many deaths occurred in people who were infected with COVID-19, but not tested. Higher occupancy and lower staffing levels were independently associated with risks of infection. Protecting staff and residents from infection requires regular testing for COVID-19 and fundamental changes to staffing and care home occupancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background As of 1 November 2020, there have been >230 000 deaths and 9 million confirmed and probable cases attributable to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United States. However, this overwhelming toll has not been distributed equally, with geographic, race/ethnic, age, and socioeconomic disparities in exposure and mortality defining features of the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. Methods We used individual-level COVID-19 incidence and mortality data from the state of Michigan to estimate age-specific incidence and mortality rates by race/ethnic group. Data were analyzed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models, and model results were validated using posterior predictive checks. Results In crude and age-standardized analyses we found rates of incidence and mortality more than twice as high than for Whites for all groups except Native Americans. Blacks experienced the greatest burden of confirmed and probable COVID-19 (age-standardized incidence, 1626/100 000 population) and mortality (age-standardized mortality rate, 244/100 000). These rates reflect large disparities, as Blacks experienced age-standardized incidence and mortality rates 5.5 (95% posterior credible interval [CrI], 5.4–5.6) and 6.7 (95% CrI, 6.4–7.1) times higher than Whites, respectively. We found that the bulk of the disparity in mortality between Blacks and Whites is driven by dramatically higher rates of COVID-19 infection across all age groups, particularly among older adults, rather than age-specific variation in case-fatality rates. Conclusions This work suggests that well-documented racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality in hard-hit settings, such as Michigan, are driven primarily by variation in household, community, and workplace exposure rather than case-fatality rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In March 2020, the greater New York metropolitan area became an epicenter for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The initial evolution of case incidence has not been well characterized. Methods Northwell Health Laboratories tested 46 793 persons for SARS-CoV-2 from 4 March through 10 April. The primary outcome measure was a positive reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes included patient age, sex, and race, if stated; dates the specimen was obtained and the test result; clinical practice site sources; geolocation of patient residence; and hospitalization. Results From 8 March through 10 April, a total of 26 735 of 46 793 persons (57.1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Males of each race were disproportionally more affected than females above age 25, with a progressive male predominance as age increased. Of the positive persons, 7292 were hospitalized directly upon presentation; an additional 882 persons tested positive in an ambulatory setting before subsequent hospitalization, a median of 4.8 days later. Total hospitalization rate was thus 8174 persons (30.6% of positive persons). There was a broad range (>10-fold) in the cumulative number of positive cases across individual zip codes following documented first caseincidence. Test positivity was greater for persons living in zip codes with lower annual household income. Conclusions Our data reveal that SARS-CoV-2 incidence emerged rapidly and almost simultaneously across a broad demographic population in the region. These findings support the premise that SARS-CoV-2 infection was widely distributed prior to virus testing availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was formally characterized as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented demand for healthcare resources. The purpose of this study was to identify changes in laboratory test utilization in the setting of increasing local incidence of COVID-19. Methods: We performed a retrospective assessment of laboratory test order and specimen container utilization at a single, urban tertiary care medical center. Data were extracted from the laboratory information system database over a 10-week period, spanning the primordial inflection of COVID-19 incidence in our region. Total testing volumes were calculated during the first 2 and last 2 weeks of the observation period and used as reference points to examine the absolute and relative differences in test order volume between the prepandemic and COVID-19 surge periods. Results: Between February 2, 2020, and April 11, 2020, there were 873 397 tests ordered and final verified. The in-house SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate for admitted patients in the last week of the observation period was 30.8%. Significant increases in workload were observed in the send-out laboratory section and for COVID-19 diagnosis (PCR) and management-related testing. Otherwise, there was a net decrease in overall demand across nearly all laboratory sections. Increases in testing were noted for tests related to COVID-19 management. Viral transport media and citrated blue top containers demonstrated increases in utilization. Conclusion: Increasing local incidence of COVID-19 had a profound impact on laboratory operations. While volume increases were seen for laboratory tests related to COVID-19 diagnostics and management, including some with limited evidence to support their use, overall testing volumes decreased substantially. During events such as COVID-19, monitoring of such patterns can help inform laboratory management, staffing, and test stewardship recommendations for managing resource and supply availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]