7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 Symptoms and Duration of Rapid Antigen Test Positivity at a Community Testing and Surveillance Site During Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 Periods

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study compares COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron BA.1 period with the pre-Delta and Delta variant periods and assesses the duration of rapid antigen test positivity at a walk-up community testing site.

          Key Points

          Questions

          During the Omicron BA.1 period, were there differences with the pre-Delta and Delta periods in reported COVID-19 symptoms, and what was the duration of rapid antigen test positivity during the Omicron BA.1 period?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 63 277 participants conducted at a walk-up community testing site, patients more commonly reported COVID-19 upper respiratory tract symptoms during the Omicron BA.1 period than the pre-Delta and Delta periods, with differences by vaccination status and age. During the Omicron BA.1 period, 5 days after symptom onset, 80% of participants remained positive via a rapid antigen test.

          Meaning

          These findings indicate differences in symptoms in the BA.1 Omicron period vs the pre-Delta and Delta periods, which may be associated with rising population immunity as well as different SARS-CoV-2 variants, and positivity remained high 5 days after symptom onset in the BA.1 Omicron period.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Characterizing the clinical symptoms and evolution of community-based SARS-CoV-2 infections may inform health practitioners and public health officials in a rapidly changing landscape of population immunity and viral variants.

          Objectives

          To compare COVID-19 symptoms among people testing positive with a rapid antigen test (RAT) during the Omicron BA.1 variant period (December 1, 2021, to January 30, 2022) with the pre-Delta (January 10 to May 31, 2021) and Delta (June 1 to November 30, 2021) variant periods and to assess the duration of RAT positivity during the Omicron BA.1 surge.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 10, 2021, to January 31, 2022, at a walk-up community COVID-19 testing site in San Francisco, California. Participants included children and adults seeking COVID-19 testing with an RAT, regardless of age, vaccine status, or symptoms.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Fisher exact tests or χ 2 tests were used to compare COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron BA.1 period with the pre-Delta and Delta periods for vaccination status and age group. Among people returning for repeated testing during the Omicron period, the proportion with a positive RAT between 4 and 14 days from symptom onset or since first positive test if asymptomatic was estimated.

          Results

          Among 63 277 persons tested (median [IQR] age, 32 [21-44] years, with 12.0% younger than 12 years; 52.0% women; and 68.5% Latinx), a total of 18 301 people (28.9%) reported symptoms, of whom 4565 (24.9%) tested positive for COVID-19. During the Omicron BA.1 period, 3032 of 7283 symptomatic participants (41.6%) tested positive, and the numbers of these reporting cough and sore throat were higher than during pre-Delta and Delta periods (cough: 2044 [67.4%] vs 546 [51.3%] of 1065 participants, P < .001 for pre-Delta, and 281 [60.0%] of 468 participants, P = .002, for Delta; sore throat: 1316 [43.4%] vs 315 [29.6%] of 1065 participants, P < .001 for pre-Delta, and 136 [29.1%] of 468 participants, P < .001, for Delta). Compared with the 1065 patients with positive test results in the pre-Delta period, congestion among the 3032 with positive results during the Omicron BA.1 period was more common (1177 [38.8%] vs 294 [27.6%] participants, P < .001), and loss of taste or smell (160 [5.3%] vs 183 [17.2%] participants, P < .001) and fever (921 [30.4%] vs 369 [34.7%] participants, P = .01) were less common. In addition, during the Omicron BA.1 period, fever was less common among the people with positive test results who had received a vaccine booster compared with those with positive test results who were unvaccinated (97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 42 [36.2%] of 116 participants, P = .003), and fever and myalgia were less common among participants who had received a booster compared with those with positive results who had received only a primary series (fever: 97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 559 [32.8%] of 1705 participants, P < .001; myalgia: 115 [26.6%] of 432 vs 580 [34.0%] of 1705 participants, P = .003). During the Omicron BA.1 period, 5 days after symptom onset, 507 of 1613 people (31.1%) with COVID-19 stated that their symptoms were similar, and 95 people (5.9%) reported worsening symptoms. Among people testing positive, 80.2% of participants who were symptomatic and retested remained positive 5 days after symptom onset.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cross-sectional study, COVID-19 upper respiratory tract symptoms were more commonly reported during the Omicron BA.1 period than during the pre-Delta and Delta periods, with differences by vaccination status. Rapid antigen test positivity remained high 5 days after symptom onset, supporting guidelines requiring a negative test to inform the length of the isolation period.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19, England, January to May 2020

          Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract peaks around symptom onset and infectious virus persists for 10 days in mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (n = 324 samples analysed). RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values correlate strongly with cultivable virus. Probability of culturing virus declines to 8% in samples with Ct > 35 and to 6% 10 days after onset; it is similar in asymptomatic and symptomatic persons. Asymptomatic persons represent a source of transmissible virus.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant replication in human bronchus and lung ex vivo

            The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern with progressively increased transmissibility between humans is a threat to global public health. The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 also evades immunity from natural infection or vaccines1, but it is unclear whether its exceptional transmissibility is due to immune evasion or intrinsic virological properties. Here we compared the replication competence and cellular tropism of the wild-type virus and the D614G, Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants in ex vivo explant cultures of human bronchi and lungs. We also evaluated the dependence on TMPRSS2 and cathepsins for infection. We show that Omicron replicates faster than all other SARS-CoV-2 variants studied in the bronchi but less efficiently in the lung parenchyma. All variants of concern have similar cellular tropism compared to the wild type. Omicron is more dependent on cathepsins than the other variants of concern tested, suggesting that the Omicron variant enters cells through a different route compared with the other variants. The lower replication competence of Omicron in the human lungs may explain the reduced severity of Omicron that is now being reported in epidemiological studies, although determinants of severity are multifactorial. These findings provide important biological correlates to previous epidemiological observations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Test sensitivity is secondary to frequency and turnaround time for COVID-19 screening

              Test sensitivity is secondary to frequency and turnaround time for COVID-19 screening.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                10 October 2022
                October 2022
                10 October 2022
                : 5
                : 10
                : e2235844
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
                [2 ]The San Francisco Latino Task Force-Response to COVID-19, San Francisco, California
                [3 ]Chan-Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, California
                [4 ]Unidos en Salud, San Francisco, California
                [5 ]Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services, San Francisco, California
                [6 ]Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: August 24, 2022.
                Published: October 10, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.35844
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Marquez C et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Carina Marquez, MD, MPH, Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases Global Medicine, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, 995 Potrero Ave, San Francisco, CA 94110 ( carina.marquez@ 123456ucsf.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Marquez and Mr. Schrom had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs DeRisi and Havlir contributed equally.
                Concept and design: Marquez, Jones, Susana Rojas, Tulier-Laiwa, Petersen, DeRisi, Havlir.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Marquez, Kerkhoff, Schrom, Susy Rojas, Black, Mitchell, Wang, Pilarowski, Ribeiro, Payan, Manganelli, Lemus, Jain, Chamie, Petersen, DeRisi, Havlir.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Marquez, Kerkhoff, Schrom, Payan, Petersen, DeRisi, Havlir.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Black, Mitchell, Wang, Pilarowski, Ribeiro, Jones, Manganelli, Susy Rojas, Lemus, Jain, Chamie, Tulier-Laiwa, Petersen, DeRisi, Havlir.
                Statistical analysis: Marquez, Kerkhoff, Schrom, Petersen.
                Obtained funding: DeRisi, Havlir.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Marquez, Black, Mitchell, Pilarowski, Ribeiro, Jones, Payan, Manganelli, Susy Rojas, Lemus, DeRisi, Havlir.
                Supervision: Marquez, Payan, Tulier-Laiwa, DeRisi, Havlir.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Marquez reported receiving grants to her university from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) outside the submitted work. Dr Manganelli reported receiving personal fees from BayPLS during the conduct of the study. Dr Chamie reported receiving grants from the NIH. Dr DeRisi reported receiving grants from BayPLS and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Public Health Company Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Havlir reported receiving grants from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and nonfinancial support from Abbott Diagnostics outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This program was supported by the University of California, San Francisco, John P. McGovern Foundation, Crankstart Foundation, and Chan Zuckerberg Health Initiative. BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Cards were provided by the California Department of Public Health.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi221009 zoi221009
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.35844
                9552893
                36215069
                7d92e541-24a5-45ea-b179-47066bda32dd
                Copyright 2022 Marquez C et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 2 April 2022
                : 24 August 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: University of California, San Francisco
                Funded by: John P. McGovern Foundation
                Funded by: Crankstart Foundation
                Funded by: Chan Zuckerberg Health Initiative
                Funded by: California Department of Public Health
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article