Are presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in nursing home residents unrecognised symptomatic infections? Sequence and metadata from weekly testing in an extensive nursing home outbreak

Impact of the First-Wave COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Expenditure for Older Adults in China: Lessons from a Natural Experiment

Older adults' access to healthcare services may have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored the effect of the first wave pandemic on the medical expenditure of older adults in China. Difference-in-Difference models captured both temporal and geographical variation in COVID-19 exposure to estimate the impacts of the pandemic on medical expenditure through a quasi-natural experiment. Data derived from the China Family Panel Studies. Results indicate that exposure to the pandemic significantly decreased total medical expenditures, hospital expenditures, and non-hospital medical expenditures of Chinese older adults by 15% (95% CI 12%-17%), 5% (95% CI 2%-7%), and 15% (95% CI 13%-16%), respectively, for each standardized severity increment. Females, less well-educated people, and individuals without internet access were most susceptible to experiencing these reductions. This study revealed that COVID-19 exerted a detrimental influence on the medical expenditure of older adults in mainland China. The "hidden epidemic" of non-COVID-19 medical needs of older adults deserves more attention on the part of policymakers.

Risk evaluation of venue types and human behaviors of COVID-19 outbreaks in public indoor environments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite increasing vaccination rates, the incidence of breakthrough infections with COVID-19 has increased due to the continued emergence of new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Therefore, Non-pharmaceutical interventions remain the most effective measures for coping with the ever-changing pandemic. The lifting of compulsory interventions has made individuals primary responsibility for their own health, which highlights the importance of increasing awareness of the infection risk from the environment in which they live and their individual behaviors. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Scopus on April 17, 2023, for all studies reporting COVID-19 outbreaks in public indoor venues. The study outcome was the attack rate. A total of 42 studies, which included cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and case studies, reporting data on 1951 confirmed cases in 64 COVID-19 outbreaks satisfied the meta-analysis and were included in the review. A random-effect model was used in the meta-analysis, and subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate factors affecting attack rates. We found a strong level of evidence (p < 0.01) supporting a higher pooled attack rate in recreation-related venues (0.44, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.60) than in work-related venues (0.21, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.27). Compared to those outbreaks without that, outbreaks with high-intensity exercise, vocalization, contact behavior, or close body proximity had a higher attack rate of 0.51, 0.55, 0.33, and 0.39, respectively. Further studies suggest that different attack rates across different types of settings may be the result of heterogeneity in exposed people's behaviors. There were significant heterogeneities that may limit the interpretation of connections between influencing factors and outbreak outcomes. The identification of key behaviors that may contribute to transmission risk, and their correlation with venue type, has important implications for the development of future public health interventions and individual prevention strategies for respiratory infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Universal masking during COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aged care facilities (ACF) are a high-risk COVID-19 transmission setting, and older residents are at greater risk of severe outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed whether universal masking and COVID-19 vaccination reduce SARS-CoV-2 attack rates (ARs) in ACF. Articles published between 1 December 2019 and 28 February 2022 were screened across five databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)). Risk of bias was assessed using relevant Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Meta-analysis of single proportions, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were performed to compare the effects of universal masking and vaccine doses on pooled SARS-CoV-2 ARs. Of 99 included articles, SARS-CoV-2 ARs for residents were available in 86 studies (representing 139 outbreaks), and for staff in 49 studies (78 outbreaks). Universal masking was associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 ARs in ACF outbreaks (AR = 34.9% [95% CI: 27.2-42.6%]) compared to facilities without universal masking (67.3% [54.2-80.4%], p < .0001). In ACF with universal masking prior to outbreak onset, facility-wide testing, and documentation of asymptomatic infection, the asymptomatic AR at time of testing was 11.4% (6.5-17.4%) in residents. Receipt of zero, one and two vaccination doses were associated with ARs of 64.9% (49.6-80.2%), 54.9% (33.7-76.1%) and 45.2% (29.2-61.3%), respectively. To protect residents from COVID-19, ACF should provide vaccination of residents and staff, universal masking for staff, and facility-wide testing during times of heightened community transmission.

Investigation of hospital discharge cases and SARS-CoV-2 introduction into Lothian care homes

BACKGROUND

The first epidemic wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Scotland resulted in high case numbers and mortality in care homes. In Lothian, over a third of care homes reported an outbreak while there was limited testing of hospital patients discharged to care homes.

AIM

Investigate hospital discharges as a source of SARS-CoV-2 introduction into care homes during the first epidemic wave.

METHODS

A clinical review was performed for all discharges from hospitals to care homes starting 1st March 2020 to 31st May 2020. Episodes were ruled out based on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) test history, clinical assessment at discharge, whole genome sequencing (WGS) data and an infectious period of 14 days. Clinical samples were processed for WGS, and consensus genomes generated were used for analysis by cluster investigation and virus epidemiological tool (CIVET). Patient timelines were obtained using electronic hospital records.

FINDINGS

In total 787 hospital discharges to care homes were identified. Out of these 776 (99%) were ruled out for hospital discharge introduction. However, for 10 episodes the results were inconclusive as there was low genomic diversity in consensus genomes or no sequencing data. Only one discharge episode had a genomic, time and location link to positive cases during hospital admission leading to 10 further positive cases in the care home.

CONCLUSION

Majority of hospital discharges were ruled out for introduction into Lothian care homes highlighting the importance of screening all new admissions when faced with a novel emerging virus and no vaccine available.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding control measures on long-term care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) were high-risk settings for COVID-19 outbreaks.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on LTCFs, including rates of infection, hospitalisation, case fatality, and mortality, and to determine the association between control measures and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in residents and staff.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic search of six databases for articles published between December 2019 and 5 November 2021, and performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses to identify the impact of COVID-19 on LTCFs and the association between control measures and infection rate.

RESULTS

We included 108 studies from 19 countries. These studies included 1,902,044 residents and 255,498 staff from 81,572 LTCFs, among whom 296,024 residents and 36,807 staff were confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive. The pooled infection rate was 32.63% (95%CI: 30.29 ~ 34.96%) for residents, whereas it was 10.33% (95%CI: 9.46 ~ 11.21%) for staff. In LTCFs that cancelled visits, new patient admissions, communal dining and group activities, and vaccinations, infection rates in residents and staff were lower than the global rate. We reported the residents' hospitalisation rate to be 29.09% (95%CI: 25.73 ~ 32.46%), with a case-fatality rate of 22.71% (95%CI: 21.31 ~ 24.11%) and mortality rate of 15.81% (95%CI: 14.32 ~ 17.30%). Significant publication biases were observed in the residents' case-fatality rate and the staff infection rate, but not in the infection, hospitalisation, or mortality rate of residents.

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 infection rates would be very high among LTCF residents and staff without appropriate control measures. Cancelling visits, communal dining and group activities, restricting new admissions, and increasing vaccination would significantly reduce the infection rates.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 235 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,015 COVID-19-positive patients, 36.62% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 33.02%-40.39%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 15) versus self-report (n = 220) methodologies (Q = 1.73, df = 1, P = 0.1889). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

Explosive COVID-19 outbreak in a German nursing home and the possible role of the air ventilation system

Background

Most COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes are explained by transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from nurses or visitors.

Methods and results

We describe an outbreak with 64 of the 67 residents identified as COVID-19 cases within two weeks (34 in nursing block 1, 30 in nursing block 2), at least 32 of them had relevant symptoms of COVID-19. Thirteen of the residents’ deaths were associated with COVID-19. In addition, 27 of approximately 60 staff members were identified as COVID-19 cases, 23 of them had relevant symptoms. In none of the samples from residents or staff was a mutation of SARS-CoV-2 detected. Quarantine of the residents was already in force at the beginning of the outbreak. A common source among the staff was considered to be unlikely because the two nursing home blocks had no staff rotation and the staff had to wear FFP2 masks during contact with residents. Three months after the outbreak the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 was detected on 14 of 39 sampled indoor surfaces of the air ventilation system with Ct values between 34.9 and 41.9, but only at the air supply in the corridor (11 of 24 samples) and the air overflow in the door between the corridor and the residents’ rooms (three of 11 samples) but not at the air exhaust in the residents’ bathrooms.

Conclusions

The air ventilation system and an inversion weather situation three days before the first confirmed case may have enhanced viral spread inside the nursing home assuming that a common source with a high viral load had existed at the time of outbreak.

Caring for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients represent a high-risk group with increased risk of death from COVID-19. Despite the number of published studies, several unmet needs in care for older adults exist.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss unmet needs of COVID-19 in this special population.

SOURCES

A literature review for studies on COVID-19 in elderly patients published between December 2019 and November 2021 was performed. Clinical questions were formulated to guide the literature search. The search was conducted in the MEDLINE database, combining specific search terms. Two reviewers independently conducted the search and selected the studies according to the prespecified clinical questions.

CONTENT

Elderly patients with COVID-19 have peculiar characteristics. They may have atypical clinical presentation, with no fever and with delirium or neurological manifestations as the most common signs, with potential delayed diagnosis and increased risk of death. The reported fatality rates among elderly patients with COVID-19 are extremely high. Several factors, including comorbidities, atypical presentation, and exclusion from intensive care unit care, contribute to this excess of mortality. Age alone is frequently used as a key factor to exclude the elderly from intensive care, but there is evidence that frailty rather than age better predicts the risk of poor outcome in this category. Durability of vaccine efficacy in the elderly remains debated, and the need for a third booster dose is becoming increasingly evident. Finally, efforts to care for elderly patients who have survived after acute COVID-19 should be implemented, considering the high rates of long COVID sequelae and the risk of longitudinal functional and cognitive decline.

IMPLICATIONS

We highlight peculiar aspects of COVID-19 in elderly patients and factors contributing to high risk of poor outcome in this category. We also illuminated gaps in current evidence, suggesting future research directions and underlining the need for further studies on the optimal management of elderly patients with COVID-19.

Clinical evaluation of single-swab sampling for rapid COVID-19 detection in outbreak settings in Dutch nursing homes

PURPOSE

To assess whether one swab can be used to perform both the antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 detection during an outbreak in the nursing home (NH) setting.

METHODS

The single-swab method (SSM), where the Ag-RDT is performed with the transport medium used for RT-PCR, was evaluated in three Dutch NHs and compared to the laboratory setting. We collected Ag-RDT and RT-PCR results, NH resident characteristics and symptomatology. In addition, two focus groups were held with the involved care professionals to gain insight into the feasibility of the SMM in the NH setting.

RESULTS

In the NH setting, the SSM had a sensitivity of 51% and a specificity of 89% compared to RT-PCR. These were lower than in the laboratory setting (69% and 100% respectively). Yet, when stratified for cycle threshold values, the sensitivity became comparable between the settings. Symptoms occurred more frequent in the Ag-RDT+ group than Ag-RDT- group. Resident characteristics did not differ between these groups. Based on the focus groups, the SSM was feasible to perform if certain requirements, such as availability of staff, equipment and proper training, were met. However, the rapid availability of the test results were perceived as a dilemma.

CONCLUSION

The advantages and disadvantages need to be considered before implementation of the SSM can be recommended in the NH setting. For the vulnerable NH residents, it is important to find the right balance between effective testing policy and the burden this imposes.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

REVIEW PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Implementing COVID-19 infection prevention and control measures in long-term care settings

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had far-reaching and significant effects worldwide. Many of those identified as most vulnerable to the disease reside in long-term care settings such as nursing and residential homes, so infection prevention and control is an essential area of practice. This article describes how COVID-19 is transmitted and discusses various measures that can be taken to reduce the spread of infection to protect residents, staff and visitors. Such measures include social distancing, routine screening, the use of personal protective equipment and cleaning.

The role of viral genomics in understanding COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities

We reviewed all genomic epidemiology studies on COVID-19 in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) that had been published to date. We found that staff and residents were usually infected with identical, or near identical, SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Outbreaks usually involved one predominant cluster, and the same lineages persisted in LTCFs despite infection control measures. Outbreaks were most commonly due to single or few introductions followed by a spread rather than a series of seeding events from the community into LTCFs. The sequencing of samples taken consecutively from the same individuals at the same facilities showed the persistence of the same genome sequence, indicating that the sequencing technique was robust over time. When combined with local epidemiology, genomics allowed probable transmission sources to be better characterised. The transmission between LTCFs was detected in multiple studies. The mortality rate among residents was high in all facilities, regardless of the lineage. Bioinformatics methods were inadequate in a third of the studies reviewed, and reproducing the analyses was difficult because sequencing data were not available in many facilities.

Implementation of a national testing policy in Dutch nursing homes during SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Background

To evaluate how a national policy of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) regardless of symptoms was implemented during outbreaks in Dutch nursing homes in the second wave of the pandemic and to explore barriers and facilitators to serial testing.

Methods

We conducted a mixed‐method study of nursing homes in the Netherlands with a SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak after 15 September 2020. Direct care staff and management from 355 healthcare organizations were invited to participate in a digital survey. A total of 74 out of 355 (20.9%) healthcare organizations participated and provided information about 117 nursing homes. We conducted 26 in‐depth interviews on the outbreak and the testing strategy used. We also conducted four focus group meetings involving managers, physicians, nurses, and certified health assistants. Recordings were transcribed and data were thematically analyzed.

Results

One hundred and four nursing homes (89%) tested residents regardless of their symptoms during the outbreak, and 85 nursing homes (73%) tested the staff regardless of their symptoms. However, interviews showed testing was sometimes implemented during later stages of the outbreak and was not always followed up with serial testing. Barriers to serial testing regardless of symptoms were lack of knowledge of local leaders with decisional making authority, lack of a cohort ward or skilled staff, and insufficient collaboration with laboratories or local public health services. Important facilitators to serial testing were staff willingness to undergo testing and the availability of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.

Conclusions

Serial testing regardless of symptoms was only partially implemented. The response rate of 21% of nursing home organizations gives a risk of selection bias. Barriers to testing need to be addressed. A national implementation policy that promotes collaboration between public health services and nursing homes and educates management and care staff is necessary.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 35.34%-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, P = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

Symptom- and Prevention-Based Testing of COVID-19 in Nursing Home Residents: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Nursing homes (NH) residents with COVID-19 can either be tested because of presence of core symptoms (S-based) or because of transmission prevention (TP-based). The investigated study sample included all NH residents who underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing between March 16, 2020 and May 31, 2020 (n = 380). Clinical symptoms, temperature, and oxygen saturation were extracted from medical records, 7 days before to 14 days after testing. COVID-19 was confirmed in 81 (21%) residents; 36 (44%) S-based and 45 (56%) TP-based: 45. Cycle threshold (CT) values did not differ between the groups. In the 7 days prior to the test falling (32%), somnolence (25%) and fatigue (21%) occurred in both groups. Two days before the test, we observed a stronger decrease in oxygen saturation and an increase in temperature for the S-based group compared to the T-based group that remained up to 10 days after testing. Residents within the S-based group were 2.5 times more likely to increased mortality within 30 days than residents in the TP-based group (HR, 2.56; 95% 1.3–5.2). Although, 73% of the T-based group did eventually develop core symptoms. Thus, attention to falling and daily measures of temperature and oxygen saturation can contribute to earlier detection.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19, taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Additionally, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct prevalence measures of taste loss would be the most valid because they avoid the taste/smell confusion of self-report. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% CI: 35.34-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, p = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females and taste loss was highest in middle-aged groups. Thus, taste loss is a bona fide symptom COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.