Identification of Presymptomatic and Asymptomatic Cases Using Cohort-Based Testing Approaches at a Large Correctional Facility-Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 2020

Mitigating COVID-19 Burden in People Experiencing Incarceration: A Systematic Review

People experiencing incarceration (PEI) have poorer COVID-19 clinical outcomes compared with the general population. Many interventions were implemented in incarceration facilities to mitigate the burden of COVID-19. This systematic review seeks to analyze the effectiveness of these interventions. Twenty-two studies were included. Reduction of the incarcerated population/interfacility transfers, cohorting of new and infectious incarcerated people, mass asymptomatic testing (despite often low uptake), hygiene measures, and prioritization of PEI in vaccine policy had some evidence of effectiveness at reducing transmission and risk of COVID-19 in incarceration facilities. Visitation suspension had conflicting evidence of effectiveness. Studies were of low or medium quality. Inadequate control of confounding variables limited the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn. Many studies relied on retrospective, third-party data. Higher quality research is required.

Access to COVID-19 testing by individuals with housing insecurity during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: a scoping review

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic focused attention on healthcare disparities and inequities faced by individuals within marginalized and structurally disadvantaged groups in the United States. These individuals bore the heaviest burden across this pandemic as they faced increased risk of infection and difficulty in accessing testing and medical care. Individuals experiencing housing insecurity are a particularly vulnerable population given the additional barriers they face. In this scoping review, we identify some of the barriers this high-risk group experienced during the early days of the pandemic and assess novel solutions to overcome these barriers.

Methods

A scoping review was performed following PRISMA-Sc guidelines looking for studies focusing on COVID-19 testing among individuals experiencing housing insecurity. Barriers as well as solutions to barriers were identified as applicable and summarized using qualitative methods, highlighting particular ways that proved effective in facilitating access to testing access and delivery.

Results

Ultimately, 42 studies were included in the scoping review, with 143 barriers grouped into four categories: lack of cultural understanding, systemic racism, and stigma; medical care cost, insurance, and logistics; immigration policies, language, and fear of deportation; and other. Out of these 42 studies, 30 of these studies also suggested solutions to address them.

Conclusion

A paucity of studies have analyzed COVID-19 testing barriers among those experiencing housing insecurity, and this is even more pronounced in terms of solutions to address those barriers. Expanding resources and supporting investigators within this space is necessary to ensure equitable healthcare delivery.

COVID-19 Burden in Adult Correctional or Detention Facilities and the Surrounding Communities, January 1, 2020-July 20, 2021

We estimated the COVID-19 burden in adult correctional or detention facilities and associated counties by state, facility jurisdiction, and county urbanicity. COVID-19 cumulative incidence (cases per 1,000 persons) for each U.S. correctional or detention facility and people ages 18 years and older in the associated county was estimated between January 1, 2020 and July 20, 2021. Across 46 U.S. states, 1,083 correctional or detention facilities in 718 counties were included. The median COVID-19 incidence rate was higher in facilities than in associated counties for 42 of 46 states and for all facility jurisdictions and county urbanicity categories. COVID-19 burden was higher in most facilities than in associated counties. Implementing COVID-19 mitigation measures in correctional settings is needed to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in facilities and associated counties.

Morning SARS-CoV-2 Testing Yields Better Detection of Infection Due to Higher Viral Loads in Saliva and Nasal Swabs upon Waking

Optimizing specimen collection methods to achieve the most reliable SARS-CoV-2 detection for a given diagnostic sensitivity would improve testing and minimize COVID-19 outbreaks. From September 2020 to April 2021, we performed a household-transmission study in which participants self-collected specimens every morning and evening throughout acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seventy mildly symptomatic participants collected saliva, and of those, 29 also collected nasal swab specimens. Viral load was quantified in 1,194 saliva and 661 nasal swab specimens using a high-analytical-sensitivity reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assay. Viral loads in both saliva and nasal swab specimens were significantly higher in morning-collected specimens than in evening-collected specimens after symptom onset. This aspect of the biology of SARS-CoV-2 infection has implications for diagnostic testing. We infer that morning collection would have resulted in significantly improved detection and that this advantage would be most pronounced for tests with low to moderate analytical sensitivity. Collecting specimens for COVID-19 testing in the morning offers a simple and low-cost improvement to clinical diagnostic sensitivity of low- to moderate-analytical-sensitivity tests. IMPORTANCE Our findings suggest that collecting saliva and nasal swab specimens in the morning immediately after waking yields higher SARS-CoV-2 viral loads than collection later in the day. The higher viral loads from morning specimen collection are predicted to significantly improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals, particularly when using moderate- to low-analytical-sensitivity COVID-19 diagnostic tests, such as rapid antigen tests.

Missing science: A scoping study of COVID-19 epidemiological data in the United States

Systematic approaches to epidemiologic data collection are critical for informing pandemic responses, providing information for the targeting and timing of mitigations, for judging the efficacy and efficiency of alternative response strategies, and for conducting real-world impact assessments. Here, we report on a scoping study to assess the completeness of epidemiological data available for COVID-19 pandemic management in the United States, enumerating authoritative US government estimates of parameters of infectious transmission, infection severity, and disease burden and characterizing the extent and scope of US public health affiliated epidemiological investigations published through November 2021. While we found authoritative estimates for most expected transmission and disease severity parameters, some were lacking, and others had significant uncertainties. Moreover, most transmission parameters were not validated domestically or re-assessed over the course of the pandemic. Publicly available disease surveillance measures did grow appreciably in scope and resolution over time; however, their resolution with regards to specific populations and exposure settings remained limited. We identified 283 published epidemiological reports authored by investigators affiliated with U.S. governmental public health entities. Most reported on descriptive studies. Published analytic studies did not appear to fully respond to knowledge gaps or to provide systematic evidence to support, evaluate or tailor community mitigation strategies. The existence of epidemiological data gaps 18 months after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need for more timely standardization of data collection practices and for anticipatory research priorities and protocols for emerging infectious disease epidemics.

The health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults who experience imprisonment globally: A mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

The prison setting and health status of people who experience imprisonment increase the risks of COVID-19 infection and sequelae, and other health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a mixed methods systematic review on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health of people who experience imprisonment.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Social Sciences Abstracts, CINAHL, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Sociology Database, Coronavirus Research Database, ERIC, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, Web of Science, and Scopus in October 2021. We reviewed reference lists for included studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original research conducted in or after December 2019 on health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults in prisons or within three months of release.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for qualitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data for quantitative studies. We qualitized quantitative data and extracted qualitative data, coded data, and collated similar data into categories.

RESULTS

We identified 62 studies. People in prisons had disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 mortality. During the pandemic, all-cause mortality worsened, access to health care and other services worsened, and there were major impacts on mental wellbeing and on relationships with family and staff. There was limited evidence regarding key primary and secondary prevention strategies.

LIMITATIONS

Our search was limited to databases. As the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, more evidence will emerge.

CONCLUSIONS

Prisons and people who experience imprisonment should be prioritized for COVID-19 response and recovery efforts, and an explicit focus on prisons is needed for ongoing public health work including emergency preparedness.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

239324.

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/).

Implementation of a COVID-19 Screening Testing Program in a Rural, Tribal Nation: Experience of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, January-February 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected tribal populations, including the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Universal screening testing in a community using rapid antigen tests could allow for near-real-time identification of COVID-19 cases and result in reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Published experiences of such testing strategies in tribal communities are lacking. Accordingly, tribal partners, with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, implemented a serial testing program using the Abbott BinaxNOW rapid antigen test in 2 tribal casinos and 1 detention center on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation for a 4-week pilot period from January to February 2021. Staff members at each setting, and incarcerated adults at the detention center, were tested every 3 or 4 days with BinaxNOW. During the 4-week period, 3834 tests were performed among 716 participants at the sites. Lessons learned from implementing this program included demonstrating (1) the plausibility of screening testing programs in casino and prison settings, (2) the utility of training non-laboratory personnel in rapid testing protocols that allow task shifting and reduce the workload on public health employees and laboratory staff, (3) the importance of building and strengthening partnerships with representatives from the community and public and private sectors, and (4) the need to implement systems that ensure confidentiality of test results and promote compliance among participants. Our experience and the lessons learned demonstrate that a serial rapid antigen testing strategy may be useful in work settings during the COVID-19 pandemic as schools and businesses are open for service.

Epidemiology of Coronavirus Disease 2019 at a County Jail-Alameda County, California, March 2020-March 2021

CONTEXT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence rates are 2- to 5-fold higher among persons incarcerated in the United States than in the general population.

PROGRAM OR POLICY

We describe an outbreak investigation of COVID-19 at a jail (jail A) in Alameda County during March 2020-March 2021.

IMPLEMENTATION

To prevent COVID-19 cases among incarcerated persons and employees, staff at jail A and the county public health department worked to develop and recommend infection control measures implemented by jail A including, but not limited to, face covering use among incarcerated persons and staff; cohorting incarcerated persons at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 in dedicated housing units; quarantining all newly detained individuals for 14 days; and offering testing for all symptomatic incarcerated persons, newly incarcerated persons at day 2 and day 10, and all persons who resided in a housing unit where a COVID-19 case was detected.

EVALUATION

A total of 571 COVID-19 cases were detected among incarcerated persons at jail A during March 2020-March 2021, which represented a total incidence of 280 per 1000 population, 5 times higher than the rate in Alameda County. Of the 571 cases among incarcerated persons, 557 (98%) were male; 415 (73%) were aged 18 to 40 years; 249 (44%) were Latino; and 180 (32%) were African American; 354 (62%) were not symptomatic; and 220 (39%) had no comorbidities. Less than 2% of infected incarcerated persons were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported.

DISCUSSION

COVID-19 disproportionately impacted persons incarcerated at jail A, with higher numbers among Latinos and African Americans. Implementation of COVID-19 infection control and testing measures, and collaboration between public health, law enforcement, and health care providers may have, in part, led to reductions in morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 at jail A.

Global Percentage of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections Among the Tested Population and Individuals With Confirmed COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Asymptomatic infections are potential sources of transmission for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the percentage of asymptomatic infections among individuals undergoing testing (tested population) and those with confirmed COVID-19 (confirmed population).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched on February 4, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, case series studies, and case series on transmission reporting the number of asymptomatic infections among the tested and confirmed COVID-19 populations that were published in Chinese or English were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled percentage and its 95% CI. Three researchers performed the data extraction independently.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested and confirmed populations.

RESULTS

Ninety-five unique eligible studies were included, covering 29 776 306 individuals undergoing testing. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.27%), which was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52% [95% CI, 4.15%-4.89%]), air or cruise travelers (2.02% [95% CI, 1.66%-2.38%]), and pregnant women (2.34% [95% CI, 1.89%-2.78%]). The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50% (95% CI, 33.50%-47.50%), which was higher in pregnant women (54.11% [95% CI, 39.16%-69.05%]), air or cruise travelers (52.91% [95% CI, 36.08%-69.73%]), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53% [95% CI, 36.36%-58.70%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of the percentage of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections among populations tested for and with confirmed COVID-19, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 0.25% among the tested population and 40.50% among the confirmed population. The high percentage of asymptomatic infections highlights the potential transmission risk of asymptomatic infections in communities.

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.

Efficacy of the Measures Adopted to Prevent COVID-19 Outbreaks in an Italian Correctional Facility for Inmates Affected by Chronic Diseases

Background: COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons and jails may affect both inmates and correctional workers. An observational study has been performed to investigate the efficacy of specific procedures and of a serial testing approach adopted for the COVID-19 prevention in an Italian correctional facility (Bari, Apulia) for inmates affected by chronic diseases.

Methods: Two SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing campaigns were carried out for all the prisoners and correctional workers, including correctional officers (CO), administrative staff (AS), correctional health care workers (HCW), and operators working with people completing their sentence outside the prison (OOP). Antigen testing was conducted on nasopharyngeal swab specimens, using a fluorescence immunoassay for the qualitative detection of nucleocapsid SARS-CoV-2 antigen. All subjects positive to the antigen test underwent confirmation by rRT-PCR test.

Results: In total, 426 new and residential inmates were tested during the first campaign and 480 during the second campaign. Only two new inmates resulted positive at the first campaign, while no positive cases were observed at the second campaign or outside of the testing campaigns. In total, 367 correctional workers were tested at the first campaign and 325 at the second. At the first, 4 CO and 2 HCW showed positive test results, while no new positive cases were observed at the second. Moreover, 1 CO and 1 HCW resulted positive outside of the testing campaigns for the onset of symptoms while at home.

Conclusion: The implementation of a full risk management plan in a correctional facility, including both a strict protocol for the application of preventive measures and a serial testing approach, seems to be able to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in both inmates and correctional workers.

COVID-19 Outbreaks in Correctional Facilities with Work-Release Programs - Idaho, July-November 2020

As of April 16, 2021, U.S. correctional and detention facilities reported 399,631 cases of COVID-19 in incarcerated persons, resulting in 2,574 deaths (1). During July 14-November 30, 2020, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 382 persons incarcerated in Idaho correctional facilities with work-release programs. Work-release programs (which place incarcerated persons in community businesses) have social and economic benefits, but might put participants at increased risk for bidirectional transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) operates 13 state-run correctional facilities, including six low-security facilities dedicated to work-release programs. This report describes COVID-19 outbreaks in five IDOC facilities with work-release programs,* provides the mitigation strategies that IDOC implemented, and describes the collaborative public health response. As of November 30, 2020, 382 outbreak-related COVID-19 cases were identified among incarcerated persons in five Idaho correctional facilities with work-release programs; two outbreaks were linked to food processing plants. Mitigation strategies that helped to control outbreaks in IDOC facilities with work-release programs included isolation of persons with COVID-19, identification and quarantine of close contacts, mass testing of incarcerated persons and staff members, and temporary suspension of work-release programs. Implementation of public health recommendations for correctional and detention facilities with work-release programs, including mass testing and identification of high-risk work sites, can help mitigate SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. Incarcerated persons participating in work-release should be included in COVID-19 vaccination plans.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection Is Asymptomatic in Nearly Half of Adults with Robust Anti-Spike Protein Receptor-Binding Domain Antibody Response

Between June and November 2020, we assessed plasma antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein in 4996 participants (aged 18-82 years, 34.5% men) from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The weighted overall prevalence was 1.6% and monthly prevalence correlated with viral RNA-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in Greece, in the same period. Notably, 49% of seropositive cases reported no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection-related clinical symptoms and 33% were unsuspected of their previous infection. Additionally, levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the spike-protein receptor-binding domain were similar between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, irrespective of age and gender. Using Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization-approved assays, these results support the need for such studies on pandemic evaluation and highlight the development of robust humoral immune responses even among asymptomatic individuals. The high percentage of unsuspected/asymptomatic active cases, which may contribute to community transmission for more days than that of cases who are aware and self-isolate, underscores the necessity of measures across the population for the efficient control of the pandemic.