Search

Electronic medical records (EMRs) are important for rapidly compiling information to determine disease characteristics (eg, symptoms) and risk factors (eg, underlying comorbidities, medications) for disease-related outcomes. To assess EMR data accuracy, agreement between EMR abstractions and patient interviews was evaluated. Symptoms, medical history, and medication use among patients with COVID-19 collected from EMRs and patient interviews were compared using overall agreement (ie, same answer in EMR and interview), reported agreement (yes answer in both EMR and interview among those who reported yes in either), and κ statistics. Overall, patients reported more symptoms in interviews than in EMR abstractions. Overall agreement was high (≥50% for 20 of 23 symptoms), but only subjective fever and dyspnea had reported agreement of ≥50%. The κ statistics for symptoms were generally low. Reported medical conditions had greater agreement with all condition categories (n = 10 of 10) having ≥50% overall agreement and half (n = 5 of 10) having ≥50% reported agreement. More nonprescription medications were reported in interviews than in EMR abstractions, leading to low reported agreement (28%). Discordance was observed for symptoms, medical history, and medication use between EMR abstractions and patient interviews. Investigations using EMRs to describe clinical characteristics and identify risk factors should consider the potential for incomplete data, particularly for symptoms and medications., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 2024.)

The 4 common types of human coronaviruses (HCoVs)-2 alpha (HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-229E) and 2 beta (HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-OC43)-generally cause mild upper respiratory illness. Seasonal patterns and annual variation in predominant types of HCoVs are known, but parameters of expected seasonality have not been defined. We defined seasonality of HCoVs during July 2014-November 2021 in the United States by using a retrospective method applied to National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System data. In the 6 HCoV seasons before 2020-21, season onsets occurred October 21-November 12, peaks January 6-February 13, and offsets April 18-June 27; most (>93%) HCoV detection was within the defined seasonal onsets and offsets. The 2020-21 HCoV season onset was 11 weeks later than in prior seasons, probably associated with COVID-19 mitigation efforts. Better definitions of HCoV seasonality can be used for clinical preparedness and for determining expected patterns of emerging coronaviruses.

Introduction: Mitigation behaviors are key to preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We identified the behaviors associated with secondary transmission from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 primary cases to household contacts and described the characteristics associated with reporting these behaviors., Methods: Households with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were recruited in California and Colorado from January to April 2021. Self-reported behaviors and demographics were collected through interviews. We investigated behaviors associated with transmission and individual and household characteristics associated with behaviors using univariable and multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to account for household clustering., Results: Among household contacts of primary cases, 43.3% (133 of 307) became infected with SARS-CoV-2. When an adjusted analysis was conducted, household contacts who slept in the same bedroom with the primary case (AOR=2.19; 95% CI=1.25, 3.84) and ate food prepared by the primary case (AOR=1.98; 95% CI=1.02, 3.87) had increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Household contacts in homes ≤2,000 square feet had increased odds of sleeping in the same bedroom as the primary case compared with those in homes >2,000 square feet (AOR=3.97; 95% CI=1.73, 9.10). Parents, siblings, and other relationships (extended family, friends, or roommates) of the primary case had decreased odds of eating food prepared by the primary case compared with partners., Conclusions: Sleeping in the same bedroom as the primary case and eating food prepared by the primary case were associated with secondary transmission. Household dimension and relationship to the primary case were associated with these behaviors. Our findings encourage innovative means to promote adherence to mitigation measures that reduce household transmission., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: In Spring 2021, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.7 (Alpha) became the predominant variant in the United States. Research suggests that Alpha has increased transmissibility compared with non-Alpha lineages. We estimated household secondary infection risk (SIR), assessed characteristics associated with transmission, and compared symptoms of persons with Alpha and non-Alpha infections., Methods: We followed households with SARS-CoV-2 infection for 2 weeks in San Diego County and metropolitan Denver, January to April 2021. We collected epidemiologic information and biospecimens for serology, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and whole-genome sequencing. We stratified SIR and symptoms by lineage and identified characteristics associated with transmission using generalized estimating equations., Results: We investigated 127 households with 322 household contacts; 72 households (56.7%) had member(s) with secondary infections. SIRs were not significantly higher for Alpha (61.0% [95% confidence interval, 52.4-69.0%]) than non-Alpha (55.6% [44.7-65.9%], P = .49). In households with Alpha, persons who identified as Asian or Hispanic/Latino had significantly higher SIRs than those who identified as White (P = .01 and .03, respectively). Close contact (eg, kissing, hugging) with primary cases was associated with increased transmission for all lineages. Persons with Alpha infection were more likely to report constitutional symptoms than persons with non-Alpha (86.9% vs 76.8%, P = .05)., Conclusions: Household SIRs were similar for Alpha and non-Alpha. Comparable SIRs may be due to saturation of transmission risk in households due to extensive close contact, or true lack of difference in transmission rates. Avoiding close contact within households may reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission for all lineages among household members., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

Background: COVID-19 vaccination reduces SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. However, evidence is emerging on the degree of protection across variants and in high-transmission settings. To better understand the protection afforded by vaccination specifically in a high-transmission setting, we examined household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during a period of high community incidence with predominant SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant, among vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts., Methods: We conducted a household transmission investigation in San Diego County, California, and Denver, Colorado, during January-April 2021. Households were enrolled if they had at least one person with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. We collected nasopharyngeal swabs, blood, demographic information, and vaccination history from all consenting household members. We compared infection risks (IRs), RT-PCR cycle threshold values, SARS-CoV-2 culture results, and antibody statuses among vaccinated and unvaccinated household contacts., Results: We enrolled 493 individuals from 138 households. The SARS-CoV-2 variant was identified from 121/138 households (88%). The most common variants were Alpha (75/121, 62%) and Epsilon (19/121, 16%). There were no households with discordant lineages among household members. One fully vaccinated secondary case was symptomatic (13%); the other 5 were asymptomatic (87%). Among unvaccinated secondary cases, 105/108 (97%) were symptomatic. Among 127 households with a single primary case, the IR for household contacts was 45% (146/322; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 40-51%). The observed IR was higher in unvaccinated (130/257, 49%, 95% CI 45-57%) than fully vaccinated contacts (6/26, 23%, 95% CI 11-42%). A lower proportion of households with a fully vaccinated primary case had secondary cases (1/5, 20%) than households with an unvaccinated primary case (66/108, 62%)., Conclusions: Although SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated household contacts were reported in this high transmission setting, full vaccination protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings further support the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight the need for ongoing vaccination among eligible persons., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To assess the household secondary infection risk (SIR) of B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and non-Alpha lineages of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among children., Study Design: During January to April 2021, we prospectively followed households with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We collected questionnaires, serial nasopharyngeal swabs for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing and whole genome sequencing, and serial blood samples for serology testing. We calculated SIRs by primary case age (pediatric vs adult), household contact age, and viral lineage. We evaluated risk factors associated with transmission and described symptom profiles among children., Results: Among 36 households with pediatric primary cases, 21 (58%) had secondary infections. Among 91 households with adult primary cases, 51 (56%) had secondary infections. SIRs among pediatric and adult primary cases were 45% and 54%, respectively (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41-1.54). SIRs among pediatric primary cases with Alpha and non-Alpha lineage were 55% and 46%, respectively (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.51-4.53). SIRs among pediatric and adult household contacts were 55% and 49%, respectively (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.68-1.50). Among pediatric contacts, no significant differences in the odds of acquiring infection by demographic or household characteristics were observed., Conclusions: Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from children and adult primary cases to household members was frequent. The risk of secondary infection was similar among child and adult household contacts. Among children, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of secondary infection was not influenced by lineage. Continued mitigation strategies (eg, masking, physical distancing, vaccination) are needed to protect at-risk groups regardless of virus lineage circulating in communities., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

We compared paired serum specimens from household contacts of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cases with detectable SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion with contacts who remained seronegative. No protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with human coronavirus antibodies; however, an increase in common betacoronavirus antibodies was associated with seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 in mild to moderately ill cases., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

Importance: As self-collected home antigen tests become widely available, a better understanding of their performance during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed., Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of home antigen tests compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture by days from illness onset, as well as user acceptability., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January to May 2021 in San Diego County, California, and metropolitan Denver, Colorado. The convenience sample included adults and children with RT-PCR-confirmed infection who used self-collected home antigen tests for 15 days and underwent at least 1 nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR, viral culture, and sequencing., Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the daily sensitivity of home antigen tests to detect RT-PCR-confirmed cases. Secondary outcomes included the daily percentage of antigen test, RT-PCR, and viral culture results that were positive, and antigen test sensitivity compared with same-day RT-PCR and cultures. Antigen test use errors and acceptability were assessed for a subset of participants., Results: This study enrolled 225 persons with RT-PCR-confirmed infection (median [range] age, 29 [1-83] years; 117 female participants [52%]; 10 [4%] Asian, 6 [3%] Black or African American, 50 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, 3 [1%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 145 [64%] White, and 11 [5%] multiracial individuals) who completed 3044 antigen tests and 642 nasopharyngeal swabs. Antigen test sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 45%-55%) during the infectious period, 64% (95% CI, 56%-70%) compared with same-day RT-PCR, and 84% (95% CI, 75%-90%) compared with same-day cultures. Antigen test sensitivity peaked 4 days after illness onset at 77% (95% CI, 69%-83%). Antigen test sensitivity improved with a second antigen test 1 to 2 days later, particularly early in the infection. Six days after illness onset, antigen test result positivity was 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%). Almost all (216 [96%]) surveyed individuals reported that they would be more likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if home antigen tests were available over the counter., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study of home antigen tests suggest that sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was moderate compared with RT-PCR and high compared with viral culture. The results also suggest that symptomatic individuals with an initial negative home antigen test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection should test again 1 to 2 days later because test sensitivity peaked several days after illness onset and improved with repeated testing.

During December 2021, the United States experienced a surge in COVID-19 cases, coinciding with predominance of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant (1). During this surge, the National Football League (NFL) and NFL Players Association (NFLPA) adjusted their protocols for test-to-release from COVID-19 isolation on December 16, 2021, based on analytic assessments of their 2021 test-to-release data. Fully vaccinated* persons with COVID-19 were permitted to return to work once they were asymptomatic or fever-free and experiencing improving symptoms for ≥24 hours, and after two negative or high cycle-threshold (Ct) results (Ct≥35) from either of two reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests † (2). This report describes data from NFL's SARS-CoV-2 testing program (3) and time to first negative or Ct≥35 result based on serial COVID-19 patient testing during isolation. Among this occupational cohort of 173 fully vaccinated adults with confirmed COVID-19 during December 14-19, 2021, a period of Omicron variant predominance, 46% received negative test results or had a subsequent RT-PCR test result with a Ct≥35 by day 6 postdiagnosis (i.e., concluding 5 days of isolation) and 84% before day 10. The proportion of persons with positive test results decreased with time, with approximately one half receiving positive RT-PCR test results after postdiagnosis day 5. Although this test result does not necessarily mean these persons are infectious (RT-PCR tests might continue to return positive results long after an initial positive result) (4), these findings indicate that persons with COVID-19 should continue taking precautions, including correct and consistent mask use, for a full 10 days after symptom onset or initial positive test result if they are asymptomatic., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Christina D. Mack, Erin B. Wasserman, and Saamir Pasha report full-time employment by IQVIA. Deverick J. Anderson reports receipt of royalties for authorship from UpToDate Online, LLC and co-ownership of Infection Control Education for Major Sports, LLC. Patti Walton reports consulting fees from NFL, honoraria for presentation from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, payment as an expert witness regarding laboratory practices, support for travel to meetings from the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), serving on the Board of Directors of the Clinical Laboratory Management Association (2019–2021), membership on the ASCP Board of Governors (2019–current), and Chairmanship of the Tennessee Medical Laboratory Licensing Board (2019–2021). Catherine O’Neal reports consulting fees from NFL. Christopher J. Hostler reports co-ownership of Infection Control Education for Major Sports, LLC. Allen Sills and Emily Myers report employment by NFL. Navdeep Singh reports receipt of consulting fees from NFL and the Las Vegas Raiders. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

We quantify antibody and memory B-cell responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at 6 and 12 months postinfection among 7 unvaccinated US coronavirus disease 2019 cases. All had detectable S-specific memory B cells and immunoglobulin G at both time points, with geometric mean titers of 117.2 BAU/mL and 84.0 BAU/mL at 6 and 12 months, respectively., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

University settings have demonstrated potential for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreaks; they combine congregate living, substantial social activity, and a young population predisposed to mild illness. Using genomic and epidemiologic data, we describe a COVID-19 outbreak at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. During August-October 2020, a total of 3,485 students, including 856/6,162 students living in dormitories, tested positive. Case counts began rising during move-in week, August 25-31, 2020, then rose rapidly during September 1-11, 2020. The university initiated multiple prevention efforts, including quarantining 2 dormitories; a subsequent decline in cases was observed. Genomic surveillance of cases from Dane County, in which the university is located, did not find evidence of transmission from a large cluster of cases in the 2 quarantined dorms during the outbreak. Coordinated implementation of prevention measures can reduce COVID-19 spread in university settings and may limit spillover to the surrounding community.

We describe characteristics associated with having coronavirus disease (COVID-19) among students residing on a university campus. Of 2,187 students, 528 (24.1%) received a COVID-19 diagnosis during fall semester 2020. Students sharing a bedroom or suite had approximately twice the odds of contracting COVID-19 as those living alone.

Background: Serial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing has been implemented at institutions of higher education (IHEs) and other settings. Testing strategies can include algorithms specifying confirmatory reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing after an antigen test. It is unknown how testing strategies perform detecting SARS-CoV-2, including individual adherence to serial testing requirements., Methods: Student serial testing adherence was defined as completing ≥80% of weekly tests from October 5, 2020 to November 14, 2020 and evaluated using logistic regression. Medical records were reviewed for all positive antigen test encounters and 10% of daily negative antigen test encounters during October 19-November 30, 2020. Results were used to estimate the proportion of individuals requiring only antigen tests, requiring and completing RT-PCR testing, and associated costs of tests., Results: Two thirds (66.5%; 1166 of 1754) of eligible on-campus students adhered to weekly testing; female students were more adherent (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.59) than male students. Of all antigen test encounters, 11.5% (1409 of 12 305) reported >1 COVID-19 symptoms. Of non-COVID-19-exposed antigen test encounters, 88% (10 386 of 11 769) did not require confirmatory RT-PCR testing. Only 28% (390 of 1387) of testing encounters had an associated recommended confirmatory RT-PCR test performed. We estimated the testing strategy captured 61% (235 of 389) of predicted RT-PCR-positive specimens., Conclusions: At this IHE, most students voluntarily adhered to serial testing. The majority of antigen test results did not require confirmatory RT-PCR testing, but when required, most students did not obtain it. Including strategies to increase the proportion of individuals obtaining indicated confirmatory testing might improve the testing program's performance., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Background: Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and antigen tests are important diagnostics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Sensitivity of antigen tests has been shown to be lower than that of rRT-PCR; however, data to evaluate epidemiologic characteristics that affect test performance are limited., Methods: Paired mid-turbinate nasal swabs were collected from university students and staff and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using both Quidel Sofia SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) and rRT-PCR assay. Specimens positive by either rRT-PCR or antigen FIA were placed in viral culture and tested for subgenomic RNA (sgRNA). Logistic regression models were used to evaluate characteristics associated with antigen results, rRT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, sgRNA, and viral culture., Results: Antigen FIA sensitivity was 78.9% and 43.8% among symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, respectively. Among rRT-PCR positive participants, negative antigen results were more likely among asymptomatic participants (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-15.4) and less likely among participants reporting nasal congestion (OR 0.1, 95% CI: .03-.8). rRT-PCR-positive specimens with higher Ct values (OR 0.5, 95% CI: .4-.8) were less likely, and specimens positive for sgRNA (OR 10.2, 95% CI: 1.6-65.0) more likely, to yield positive virus isolation. Antigen testing was >90% positive in specimens with Ct values < 29. Positive predictive value of antigen test for positive viral culture (57.7%) was similar to that of rRT-PCR (59.3%)., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 antigen test advantages include low cost, wide availability and rapid turnaround time, making them important screening tests. The performance of antigen tests may vary with patient characteristics, so performance characteristics should be accounted for when designing testing strategies and interpreting results., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Background: Most current evidence on risk factors for hospitalization because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) comes from studies using data abstracted primarily from electronic health records, limited to specific populations, or that fail to capture over-the-counter medications and adjust for potential confounding factors. Properly understanding risk factors for hospitalization will help improve clinical management and facilitate targeted prevention messaging and forecasting and prioritization of clinical and public health resource needs., Objectives: To identify risk factors for hospitalization using patient questionnaires and chart abstraction., Methods: We randomly selected 600 of 1,738 laboratory-confirmed Colorado COVID-19 cases with known hospitalization status and illness onset during March 9-31, 2020. In April 2020, we collected demographics, social history, and medications taken in the 30 days before illness onset via telephone questionnaire and collected underlying medical conditions in patient questionnaires and medical record abstraction., Results: Overall, 364 patients participated; 128 were hospitalized and 236 were non-hospitalized. In multivariable analysis, chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure with oxygen requirement (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 14.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-147.93), taking opioids (aOR 8.05; CI 1.16-55.77), metabolic syndrome (aOR 5.71; CI 1.18-27.54), obesity (aOR 3.35; CI 1.58-7.09), age ≥65 years (aOR 3.22; CI 1.20-7.97), hypertension (aOR 3.14; CI 1.47-6.71), arrhythmia (aOR 2.95; CI 1.00-8.68), and male sex (aOR 2.65; CI 1.44-4.88), were significantly associated with hospitalization., Conclusion: We identified patient characteristics, medications, and medical conditions, including some novel ones, associated with hospitalization. These data can be used to inform clinical and public health resource needs., Competing Interests: CDC and CDPHE staff designed and conducted this study; received, managed, analyzed, and interpreted the data; prepared, reviewed, and approved the manuscript; and had a role in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. R. Hurlihy and N. Alden received CDC funding through the Emerging Infection Program and Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) Cooperative Agreement for work related to COVID-19. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

We characterized common exposures reported by a convenience sample of 202 US patients with coronavirus disease during January-April 2020 and identified factors associated with presumed household transmission. The most commonly reported settings of known exposure were households and healthcare facilities; among case-patients who had known contact with a confirmed case-patient compared with those who did not, healthcare occupations were more common. Among case-patients without known contact, use of public transportation was more common. Within the household, presumed transmission was highest from older (>65 years) index case-patients and from children to parents, independent of index case-patient age. These findings may inform guidance for limiting transmission and emphasize the value of testing to identify community-acquired infections.

We aimed to characterize presence of culturable virus in clinical specimens during acute illness, and antibody kinetics up to 6 months after symptom onset, among 14 early patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in the United States. We isolated viable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction-positive respiratory specimens collected during days 0-8 after onset, but not after. All 13 patients with 2 or more serum specimens developed anti-spike antibodies; 12 developed detectable neutralizing antibodies. We did not isolate virus after detection of neutralizing antibodies. Eight participants provided serum at 6 months after onset; all retained detectable anti-spike immunoglobulin G, and half had detectable neutralizing antibodies. Two participants reported not feeling fully recovered at 6 months., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

To improve recognition of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and inform clinical and public health guidance, we randomly selected 600 COVID-19 case-patients in Colorado. A telephone questionnaire captured symptoms experienced, when symptoms occurred, and how long each lasted. Among 128 hospitalized patients, commonly reported symptoms included fever (84%), fatigue (83%), cough (73%), and dyspnea (72%). Among 236 nonhospitalized patients, commonly reported symptoms included fatigue (90%), fever (83%), cough (83%), and myalgia (74%). The most commonly reported initial symptoms were cough (21%-25%) and fever (20%-25%). In multivariable analysis, vomiting, dyspnea, altered mental status, dehydration, and wheezing were significantly associated with hospitalization, whereas rhinorrhea, headache, sore throat, and anosmia or ageusia were significantly associated with nonhospitalization. General symptoms and upper respiratory symptoms occurred earlier in disease, and anosmia, ageusia, lower respiratory symptoms, and gastrointestinal symptoms occurred later. Symptoms should be considered alongside other epidemiologic factors in clinical and public health decisions regarding potential COVID-19 cases.

We compared the characteristics of hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients who had coronavirus disease in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. We found that risk for hospitalization increased with a patient's age and number of concurrent conditions. We also found a potential association between hospitalization and high hemoglobin A1c levels in persons with diabetes.

To determine prevalence of, seroprevalence of, and potential exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among a cohort of evacuees returning to the United States from Wuhan, China, in January 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional study of quarantined evacuees from 1 repatriation flight. Overall, 193 of 195 evacuees completed exposure surveys and submitted upper respiratory or serum specimens or both at arrival in the United States. Nearly all evacuees had taken preventive measures to limit potential exposure while in Wuhan, and none had detectable SARS-CoV-2 in upper respiratory tract specimens, suggesting the absence of asymptomatic respiratory shedding among this group at the time of testing. Evidence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 1 evacuee, who reported experiencing no symptoms or high-risk exposures in the previous 2 months. These findings demonstrated that this group of evacuees posed a low risk of introducing SARS-CoV-2 to the United States.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first detected in the United States in January 2020 (1), and by mid-July, approximately 3.4 million cases had been reported in the United States (2). Information about symptoms among U.S. COVID-19 patients is limited, especially among nonhospitalized patients. To better understand symptom profiles of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the United States, CDC used an optional questionnaire to collect detailed information on a convenience sample of COVID-19 patients from participating states. Symptom data were analyzed by age group, sex, hospitalization status, and symptom onset date relative to expansion of testing guidelines on March 8, 2020 (3). Among 164 symptomatic patients with known onset during January 14-April 4, 2020, a total of 158 (96%) reported fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Among 57 hospitalized adult patients (aged ≥18 years), 39 (68%) reported all three of these symptoms, compared with 25 (31%) of the 81 nonhospitalized adult patients. Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and other symptoms, such as chills, myalgia, headache, and fatigue, also were commonly reported, especially after expansion of testing guidelines. To aid prompt recognition of COVID-19, clinicians and public health professionals should be aware that COVID-19 can cause a wide variety of symptoms., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

On March 26, 2020, Colorado instituted stay-at-home orders to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To inform public health messaging and measures that could be used after reopening, persons with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during March 9-26 from nine Colorado counties comprising approximately 80% of the state's population † (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld) were asked about possible exposures to SARS-CoV-2 before implementation of stay-at-home orders. Among 1,738 persons meeting the inclusion criteria § in the Colorado Electronic Disease Surveillance System, 600 were randomly selected and interviewed using a standardized questionnaire by telephone. Data collection during April 10-30 included information about demographic characteristics, occupations, and selected activities in the 2 weeks preceding symptom onset. During the period examined, SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing was widely available in Colorado; community transmission was documented before implementation of the stay-at-home order. At least three attempts were made to contact all selected patients or their proxy (for deceased patients, minors, and persons unable to be interviewed [e.g., those with dementia]) on at least 2 separate days, at different times of day. Data were entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture (version 9.5.13; Vanderbilt University) database, and descriptive analyses used R statistical software (version 3.6.3; The R Foundation)., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The first reported U.S. case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was detected in January 2020 (1). As of June 15, 2020, approximately 2 million cases and 115,000 COVID-19-associated deaths have been reported in the United States.* Reports of U.S. patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection (the virus that causes COVID-19) describe high proportions of older, male, and black persons (2-4). Similarly, when comparing hospitalized patients with catchment area populations or nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, high proportions have underlying conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or chronic respiratory disease (3,4). For this report, data were abstracted from the medical records of 220 hospitalized and 311 nonhospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from six acute care hospitals and associated outpatient clinics in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with hospitalization. The following characteristics were independently associated with hospitalization: age ≥65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.4), black race (aOR = 3.2), having diabetes mellitus (aOR = 3.1), lack of insurance (aOR = 2.8), male sex (aOR = 2.4), smoking (aOR = 2.3), and obesity (aOR = 1.9). Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can lead to severe outcomes, including death, and measures to protect persons from infection, such as staying at home, social distancing (5), and awareness and management of underlying conditions should be emphasized for those at highest risk for hospitalization with COVID-19. Measures that prevent the spread of infection to others, such as wearing cloth face coverings (6), should be used whenever possible to protect groups at high risk. Potential barriers to the ability to adhere to these measures need to be addressed., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. James M. Blum reports personal fees from Clew Medical, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Human parainfluenza viruses (HPIVs) cause upper and lower respiratory tract illnesses, most frequently among infants and young children, but also in the elderly. While seasonal patterns of HPIV types 1-3 have been described, less is known about national patterns of HPIV-4 circulation., Objectives: To describe patterns of HPIVs circulation in the United States (US)., Study Design: We used data from the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS), a voluntary passive laboratory-based surveillance system, to characterize the epidemiology and circulation patterns of HPIVs in the US during 2011-2019. We summarized the number of weekly aggregated HPIV detections nationally and by US census region, and used a subset of data submitted to NREVSS from public health laboratories and several clinical laboratories during 2015-2019 to analyze differences in patient demographics., Results: During July 2011 - June 2019, 2,700,135 HPIV tests were reported; 122,852 (5 %) were positive for any HPIV including 22,446 for HPIV-1 (18 %), 17,474 for HPIV-2 (14 %), 67,649 for HPIV-3 (55 %), and 15,283 for HPIV-4 (13 %). HPIV testing increased substantially each year. The majority of detections occurred in children aged ≤ 2 years (36 %) with fluctuations in the distribution of age by type., Conclusions: HPIVs were detected year-round during 2011-2019, with type-specific year-to-year variations in circulation patterns. Among HPIV detections where age was known, the majority were aged ≤ 2 years. HPIV-4 exhibited an annual fall-winter seasonality, both nationally and regionally. Continued surveillance is needed to better understand national patterns of HPIV circulation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection causes a spectrum of respiratory illness, from asymptomatic to mild to fatal. MERS-CoV is transmitted sporadically from dromedary camels to humans and occasionally through human-to-human contact. Current epidemiologic evidence supports a major role in transmission for direct contact with live camels or humans with symptomatic MERS, but little evidence suggests the possibility of transmission from camel products or asymptomatic MERS cases. Because a proportion of case-patients do not report direct contact with camels or with persons who have symptomatic MERS, further research is needed to conclusively determine additional mechanisms of transmission, to inform public health practice, and to refine current precautionary recommendations.

Camel contact is a recognized risk factor for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection. Because specific camel exposures associated with MERS-CoV seropositivity are not fully understood, we investigated worker-camel interactions and MERS-CoV seroprevalence. We assessed worker seroprevalence in 2 slaughterhouses and 1 live-animal market in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, during 2014-2017 and administered an epidemiologic survey in 2016 and 2017. Across 3 sampling rounds during 2014-2017, we sampled 100-235 workers, and 6%-19% were seropositive for MERS-CoV at each sampling round. One (1.4%) of 70 seronegative workers tested at multiple rounds seroconverted. On multivariable analyses, working as a camel salesman, handling live camels or their waste, and having diabetes were associated with seropositivity among all workers, whereas handling live camels and either administering medications or cleaning equipment was associated with seropositivity among market workers. Characterization of high-risk exposures is critical for implementation of preventive measures.

Background: Human adenoviruses (HAdVs) are known causes of respiratory illness outbreaks in congregate settings, but cases and clusters are less well described from community settings in the United States. During December 2016-February 2017, the New Jersey Department of Health received reports of HAdV infections from 3 sources in 3 adjacent counties. We investigated to characterize the epidemiologic, laboratory, and clinical features of this HAdV outbreak., Methods: A case was defined as a New Jersey resident with acute respiratory illness during December 1, 2016-March 31, 2017 with laboratory identification of HAdV genome type 7d (HAdV-7d). Human adenovirus was detected by real-time and conventional polymerase chain reaction and molecular typed by partial hexon capsid protein gene sequencing. The HAdV genome type was identified by whole genome sequencing analysis. Available medical, public health, and surveillance records were reviewed., Results: We identified 12 cases, including 3 treatment facility patients, 7 college students, and 2 cases at a tertiary-care hospital. Four cases died; all had underlying comorbidities. Nine HAdV-7d whole genome sequences obtained from all 3 sites were nearly identical., Conclusions: Transmission of HAdV-7d occurred in community and congregate settings across 3 counties and resulted in severe morbidity and mortality in some cases with underlying comorbidities. Clinicians and local and state health departments should consider HAdV in patients with severe respiratory infection.

Objective: To investigate a Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak event involving multiple healthcare facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; to characterize transmission; and to explore infection control implications., Design: Outbreak investigation., Setting: Cases presented in 4 healthcare facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: a tertiary-care hospital, a specialty pulmonary hospital, an outpatient clinic, and an outpatient dialysis unit., Methods: Contact tracing and testing were performed following reports of cases at 2 hospitals. Laboratory results were confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and/or genome sequencing. We assessed exposures and determined seropositivity among available healthcare personnel (HCP) cases and HCP contacts of cases., Results: In total, 48 cases were identified, involving patients, HCP, and family members across 2 hospitals, an outpatient clinic, and a dialysis clinic. At each hospital, transmission was linked to a unique index case. Moreover, 4 cases were associated with superspreading events (any interaction where a case patient transmitted to ≥5 subsequent case patients). All 4 of these patients were severely ill, were initially not recognized as MERS-CoV cases, and subsequently died. Genomic sequences clustered separately, suggesting 2 distinct outbreaks. Overall, 4 (24%) of 17 HCP cases and 3 (3%) of 114 HCP contacts of cases were seropositive., Conclusions: We describe 2 distinct healthcare-associated outbreaks, each initiated by a unique index case and characterized by multiple superspreading events. Delays in recognition and in subsequent implementation of control measures contributed to secondary transmission. Prompt contact tracing, repeated testing, HCP furloughing, and implementation of recommended transmission-based precautions for suspected cases ultimately halted transmission.

Background: Human coronaviruses (HCoVs) -OC43, -229E, -NL63 and -HKU1 cause upper and lower respiratory tract infections. HCoVs are globally distributed and the predominant species may vary by region or year. Prior studies have shown seasonal patterns of HCoV species and annual variation in species prevalence but national circulation patterns in the US have not yet been described., Objectives: To describe circulation patterns of HCoVs -OC43, -229E, -NL63 and -HKU1 in the US., Study Design: We reviewed real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test results for HCoV-OC43, -229E, -NL63 and -HKU1 reported to The National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) by U.S. laboratories from July 2014-June 2017. We calculated the total number of tests and percent positive by week. For a subset of HCoV positive submissions with age and sex of the patient available, we tested for differences in age and sex across the four HCoV species using Chi Square and Kruskal Wallace tests., Results: 117 laboratories reported 854,575 HCoV tests; 2.2% were positive for HCoV-OC43, 1.0% for HCoV-NL63, 0.8% for HCoV-229E, and 0.6% for HCoV-HKU1. The percentage of positive tests peaked during December - March each year. No significant differences in sex were seen across species, although a significant difference in age distribution was noted., Conclusions: Common HCoVs may have annual peaks of circulation in winter months in the US, and individual HCoVs may show variable circulation from year to year. Different HCoV species may be detected more frequently in different age groups. Further years of data are needed to better understand patterns of activity for HCoVs., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)