Minimal in-school SARS-CoV-2 transmission with strict mitigation protocols at two independent schools in Nashville, TN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted school operations. To better understand the role of schools in COVID-19 transmission, we evaluated infections at two independent schools in Nashville, TN during the 2020-2021 school year. METHODS: The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 within each school, age group, and exposure setting were estimated and compared to local incidence. Primary attack rates were estimated among students quarantined for in-school close contact. RESULTS: Among 1401 students who attended school during the study period, 98 cases of COVID-19 were reported, corresponding to cumulative incidence of 7.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.7-8.5). Most cases were linked to household (58%) or community (31%) transmission, with few linked to in-school transmission (11%). Overall, 619 students were quarantined, corresponding to >5000 person-days of missed school, among whom only 5 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during quarantine (primary attack rate: 0.8%, 95% CI: 0.3, 1.9). Weekly case rates at school were not correlated with community transmission. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that transmission of COVID-19 in schools is minimal when strict mitigation measures are used, even during periods of extensive community transmission. Strict quarantine of contacts may lead to unnecessary missed school days with minimal benefit to in-school transmission.

The Effect of Photographic Light Exposure on Cup to Disc Ratio Grading

Background: Digital optic disc images are integral in remote telehealthcare, yet no quality control standards exist for the exposure setting of the images. This study evaluated the relationship between exposure setting and cup/disc ratio (c/d) grading among glaucoma specialists. Methods: Color disc photos were taken of 50 eyes of pediatric patients under anesthesia at 3 light exposure settings: dark, medium, and bright. 9 glaucoma specialists evaluated the c/d of the imaged discs in random order. The relationships between the exposure levels and the c/d estimates as well as between c/d size and variability were evaluated.Results: A total of 150 photos of 50 optic discs were graded. The c/d estimates were significantly larger among bright when compared to photos taken at the medium exposure setting(0.53 vs 0.48, P < 0.001) as well as the dark exposure setting (0.47, P < 0.001). In addition, images with larger mean c/d did not show more variability amongst readers (P = 0.59). Conclusion: Image exposure affects c/d grading of nonstereoscopic disc images. The brighter exposure is associated with larger c/d grading. Exposure consistency is key in longitudinal care.

Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population

Performance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 “ever” (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting. PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals. SARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1–47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9–45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6–47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2–95.7%, 89.3–92.8%, and 93.8–97.8%, respectively; Cohen’s kappa statistic ranged from 0.86 to 0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6–16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9–48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9–59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. All three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.

Validation of radiographic quality of simulation software - ImaSim

BACKGROUND: Virtual radiographic simulation has been found educationally effective for students to practice their clinical examinations remotely or online. A free available virtual simulator-ImaSim has received particular attention for radiographic science education because of its portability, free of charge and no constrain of location and physical facility. However, it lacks evidence to validate this virtual simulation software to faithfully reproduce radiographs comparable to that taken from a real X-ray machines to date. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate imaging quality of the virtual radiographs produced by the ImaSim. Thus, the deployment of this radiographic simulation software for teaching and experimental studying of radiography can be justified. METHODS: A real medical X-ray examination machine is employed to scan three standard QC phantoms to produce radiographs for comparing to the corresponding virtual radiographs generated by ImaSim software. The high and low range of radiographic contrast and comprehensive contrast-detail performance are considered to characterize the radiographic quality of the virtual simulation software. RESULTS: ImaSim software can generate radiographs with a contrast ranging from 30% to 0.8% and a spatial resolution as low as 0.6mm under the selected exposure setting condition. The characteristics of contrast and spatial resolution of virtual simulation generally agree with that of real medical X-ray examination machine. CONCLUSION: ImaSim software can be used to simulate a radiographic imaging process to generate radiographs with contrast and detail detectability comparable to those produced by a real X-ray imaging machine. Therefore, it can be adopted as a flexible educational tool for proof of concept and experimental design in radiography.

Digital proximity tracing app notifications lead to faster quarantine in non-household contacts: results from the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort Study

BackgroundDigital proximity tracing (DPT) apps may warn exposed individuals faster than manual contact tracing (MCT), leading to earlier interruption of transmission chains through quarantine. However, it is yet unclear whether these apps lead to a reduction in transmissions under real-world conditions. This study aimed at evaluating whether the SwissCovid DPT app is effective in warning close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases and prompting them to quarantine earlier.MethodsA population-based sample of adult index cases and close contacts identified through MCT and enrolled in the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort study were surveyed regarding use of the SwissCovid app and SARS-CoV-2 exposure setting. We analyzed ooutcomes related to app effectiveness and adherence (i.e., receipt and uploading of notification codes by index cases; receipt of app warnings and steps taken by close contacts). Furthermore, we performed adjusted time-to-event analyses stratified by exposure setting to estimate the effect of the app on time between relevant exposure and entering quarantine among close contacts.FindingsWe included 393 index cases and 261 close contacts in the analysis. Among index cases using SwissCovid, 88% reported receiving and uploading a notification code in the app to trigger a warning among proximity contacts. Among close contacts using the app, 38% reported receiving an app warning due to the risk exposure. We found that non-household contacts who were notified by the app started quarantine at a median of 2 days after exposure, while those not notified started quarantine at a median of 3 days. In stratified multivariable analyses, app notified contacts had a greater probability of going into quarantine earlier than those without app notification (HR 1·53, 95% CI 1·15-2·03).InterpretationOur study showed that non-household contacts notified by the app started quarantine one day earlier than those not notified by the app. These findings constitute the first evidence that DPT may reach exposed contacts faster than MCT, leading to earlier quarantine and potential interruption of SARS-CoV-2 transmission chains.FundingCantonal Health Directorate Zurich, University of Zurich Foundation and the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.

Are commercial antibody assays substantially underestimating SARS-CoV-2 ever infection? An analysis on a population-based sample in a high exposure setting

BackgroundPerformance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 ever (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting.MethodsPCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals.ResultsSARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1%-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9%-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6%-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2%-95.7%, 89.3%-92.8%, and 93.8%-97.8%, respectively; Cohen kappa statistic ranged from 0.86-0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6%-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9%-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9%-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively.ConclusionsAll three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.

Assessment of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in an intense re-exposure setting

Background Risk of reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unknown. We assessed risk and incidence rate of documented SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a cohort of laboratory-confirmed cases in Qatar. Methods All SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed cases with at least one PCR positive swab that is ≥45 days after a first-positive swab were individually investigated for evidence of reinfection, and classified as showing strong, good, some, or weak/no evidence for reinfection. Viral genome sequencing of the paired first-positive and reinfection viral specimens was conducted to confirm reinfection. Risk and incidence rate of reinfection were estimated. Results Out of 133,266 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, 243 persons (0.18%) had at least one subsequent positive swab ≥45 days after the first-positive swab. Of these, 54 cases (22.2%) had strong or good evidence for reinfection. Median time between first and reinfection swab was 64.5 days (range: 45-129). Twenty-three of the 54 cases (42.6%) were diagnosed at a health facility suggesting presence of symptoms, while 31 (57.4%) were identified incidentally through random testing campaigns/surveys or contact tracing. Only one person was hospitalized at time of reinfection, but was discharged the next day. No deaths were recorded. Viral genome sequencing confirmed four reinfections out of 12 cases with available genetic evidence. Reinfection risk was estimated at 0.02% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02%) and reinfection incidence rate at 0.36 (95% CI: 0.28-0.47) per 10,000 person-weeks. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.

On the Importance of Proper Window and Level Settings in Temporal Bone CT Imaging

During a discussion on temporal bone imaging, a group of resident trainees in otolaryngology were asked to corroborate the finding of a fracture in set of images that were supposed to be representative of a fracture involving the otic capsule.1 (Figure 1) Their comments included the following statements:“The image still does not clearly identify the fracture. It would have been better if the images were set to the optimal bone window configuration...” “The windowing must be of concern as well. The exposure setting for the non-magnified view is different from the magnified ones. One must observe consistent windowing in order to assess the fractures more accurately.” “...the images which demonstrate a closer look on the otic capsule areas are not rendered in the temporal bone window which makes it difficult to assess.”“...aside from lack of standard windowing...”

Assessment of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in an intense re-exposure setting

Background: Reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is debated. We assessed risk and incidence rate of documented SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a large cohort of laboratory-confirmed cases in Qatar. Methods: All SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed cases with at least one PCR positive swab that is ≥45 days after a first-positive swab were individually investigated for evidence of reinfection, and classified as showing strong, good, some, or weak/no evidence for reinfection. Viral genome sequencing of the paired first-positive and reinfection viral specimens was conducted to confirm reinfection. Risk and incidence rate of reinfection were estimated. Results: Out of 133,266 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, 243 persons (0.18%) had at least one subsequent positive swab ≥45 days after the first-positive swab. Of these, 54 cases (22.2%) had strong or good evidence for reinfection. Median time between first and reinfection swab was 64.5 days (range: 45-129). Twenty-three of the 54 cases (42.6%) were diagnosed at a health facility suggesting presence of symptoms, while 31 (57.4%) were identified incidentally through random testing campaigns/surveys or contact tracing. Only one person was hospitalized at time of reinfection, but still with mild infection. No deaths were recorded. Viral genome sequencing confirmed four out of 12 cases with available genetic evidence. Risk of reinfection was estimated at 0.01% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02%) and incidence rate of reinfection was estimated at 0.36 (95% CI: 0.28-0.47) per 10,000 person-weeks. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of a strong protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.