Search

Background SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen can be detected in plasma, but little is known about its performance as a diagnostic test for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection or infectious viral shedding among nonhospitalized individuals. Methods We used data generated from anterior nasal and blood samples collected in a longitudinal household cohort of SARS-CoV-2 cases and contacts. Participants were classified as true positives if polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive for SARS-CoV-2 and as true negatives if PCR negative and seronegative. Infectious viral shedding was determined by the cytopathic effect from viral culture. Stratified by 7 days after symptom onset, we constructed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to describe optimized accuracy (Youden index), optimized sensitivity, and specificity. Results Of 80 participants, 58 (73%) were true positives while 22 (27%) were true negatives. Using the manufacturer's cutoff of 1.25 pg/mL for evaluating infection, sensitivity was higher from 0 to 7 days (77.6% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 64%–88.2%]) than from 8 to 14 days (43.2% [95% CI, 31.1%–54.5%]) after symptom onset; specificity was unchanged at 100% (95% CI, 88.1%–100%). This test had higher sensitivity (100% [95% CI, 88.4%–100%]) and lower specificity (65% [95% CI, 40.8%–84.6%]) for infectious viral shedding as compared with infection, particularly within the first week of symptom onset. Although the presence of N-antigen correlated with infectious viral shedding (r = 0.63; P < .01), sensitivity still declined over time. Additional cutoffs from ROC curves were identified to optimize sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions We found that this SARS-CoV-2 N-antigen test was highly sensitive for detecting early but not late infectious viral shedding, making it a viable screening test for community-dwelling individuals to inform isolation practices.

Background: Based on findings from other contexts, informed by intergroup contact theory, that more contact is associated with less stigma, we hypothesized that community members with greater exposure to cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) were less likely to report EVD-related stigma towards EVD survivors. We assessed personal stigmatizing attitudes towards Ebola survivors, which reflects personal fear and judgement, as well as perceived stigma towards EVD survivors, which reflects an individual’s perception of the attitudes of the community towards a stigmatized group. Methods: From September 2016 to July 2017, we conducted a cross-sectional, community-based study of EVD-related stigma among individuals who did not contract Ebola in four EVD-affected rural communities of Kono District, Sierra Leone. We identified individuals from all quarantined households and obtained a random sample of those who were unexposed. Exposed individuals either lived in a quarantined household or were reported to have been in contact with an EVD case. Our explanatory variable was proximity to an EVD case during the outbreak. Our primary outcome was stigma towards EVD survivors, measured by a 6-item adapted HIV-related stigma index validated in Zambia and South Africa, with 1 item reflecting personal stigmatizing attitudes and 5 items reflecting perceived community stigma. The 6-item EVD stigma index had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.82). We used modified Poisson and negative binomial regression models, adjusting for potential confounders, to estimate the association between exposure proximity and EVD stigma. Results: We interviewed 538 participants aged 12 to 85 years. Most (57%) had been quarantined. Over one-third (39%) reported personal stigmatizing attitudes or perceived community stigma; the most frequently endorsed item was fear and judgment towards EVD survivors. Having contact with someone with EVD was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of perceived community stigma (prevalence ratio [PR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13–0.54) and personal stigmatizing attitudes (PR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29–0.65). In contrast, being quarantined was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of perceived community stigma (PR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.5–10.1) Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, we found evidence of an inverse relationship between EVD-related stigma and contact with an EVD case. This finding substantiates intergroup contact theory and may form the basis for anti-stigma interventions.

Background It remains unclear if there is a dose-dependent relationship between exposure risk to Ebola virus (EBOV) and severity of illness. Methods From September 2016 to July 2017, we conducted a cross-sectional, community-based study of Ebola virus disease (EVD) cases and household contacts of several transmission chains in Kono District, Sierra Leone. We analyzed 154 quarantined households, comprising both reported EVD cases and their close contacts. We used epidemiological surveys and blood samples to define severity of illness as no infection, pauci-/asymptomatic infection, unrecognized EVD, reported EVD cases who survived, or reported EVD decedents. We determine seropositivity with the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group EBOV glycoprotein immunoglobulin G antibody test. We defined levels of exposure risk from 8 questions and considered contact with body fluid as maximum exposure risk. Results Our analysis included 76 reported EVD cases (both decedents and survivors) and 421 close contacts. Among these contacts, 40 were seropositive (22 paucisymptomatic and 18 unrecognized EVD), accounting for 34% of the total 116 EBOV infections. Higher exposure risks were associated with having had EBOV infection (maximum risk: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 12.1 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.8–25.4; trend test: P Conclusions This community-based study of EVD cases and contacts provides epidemiological evidence of a dose-dependent relationship between exposure risk and severity of illness, which may partially explain why pauci-/asymptomatic EBOV infection, less severe disease, and unrecognized EVD occurs.

Background There is mounting evidence for the presence of postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC), but there is limited information on the spectrum, magnitude, duration, and patterns of these sequelae as well as their influence on quality of life. Methods We assembled a cohort of adults with a documented history of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity at ≥2 weeks past onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms or, if asymptomatic, first positive test. At 4-month intervals, we queried physical and mental health symptoms and quality of life. Results Of the first 179 participants enrolled, 10 were asymptomatic during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 125 were symptomatic but not hospitalized, and 44 were symptomatic and hospitalized. During the postacute phase, fatigue, shortness of breath, concentration problems, headaches, trouble sleeping, and anosmia/dysgeusia were most common through 8 months of observation. Symptoms were typically at least somewhat bothersome and sometimes exhibited a waxing-and-waning course. Some participants experienced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, as well as difficulties with performance of usual activities. The median visual analogue scale rating of general health was lower at 4 and 8 months compared with pre-COVID-19. Two clusters of symptom domains were identified. Conclusions Many participants report bothersome symptoms following onset of COVID-19 with variable patterns of persistence and impact on quality of life. The substantial variability suggests the existence of multiple subphenotypes of PASC. A rigorous approach to the prospective measurement of symptoms and functional manifestations sets the stage for the next phase of research focusing on the pathophysiologic causes of the various subgroups of PASC.