Dataset Information

Accessibility to SARS-CoV-2 swab test during the Covid-19 pandemic: Did age make the difference?

ABSTRACT: Although COVID-19 affects older people more severely, health policies during the first wave of the pandemic often prioritized younger individuals. We investigated whether age had influenced the access to a diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether clinical complexity and healthcare resources availability could have impacted such differences. This work included 126,741 Italian participants in the EPICOVID19 web-based survey, who reported having had contacts with known/suspected COVID-19 cases (epidemiological criterion) and/or COVID-19-like signs/symptoms (clinical criterion) from February to June 2020. Data on sociodemographic, medical history and access to SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) were collected. Logistic regressions estimated the probability of accessing NPS as a function of age and the possible modifying effect of chronic diseases' number and residential areas in such association. A total of 6136 (4.8%) participants had undergone an NPS. Older participants had lower NPS frequencies than the younger ones when reporting epidemiological (14.9% vs. 8.8%) or both epidemiological and clinical criteria (17.5% vs. 13.7%). After adjustment for potential confounders, including epidemiological and clinical criteria, the chance of NPS access decreased by 29% (OR=0.71, 95%CI:0.63-0.79) in older vs. younger individuals. Such disparity was accentuated in areas with greater healthcare resources. In conclusion, in the first wave of the pandemic, age may have affected the access to COVID-19 diagnostic testing, disadvantaging older people.

SUBMITTER: Trevisan C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8492891 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 is in place, little is known about how well the public understands these results. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the general public's grasp of the accuracy and significance of the results of the swab test.DesignWeb-based behavioural experiment.SettingItaly during the April 2020 lockdown.Participants566 Italian residents.Main outcome measuresParticipants' estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence; the predictive and diagnostic accuracy of the test; the behavioural impact of (positive vs negative) test results; the perceived usefulness of a short-term repetition of the test following positive or negative results; and rankings of causes for false positives and false negatives.ResultsMost participants considered the swab test useful (89.6%) and provided predictive values consistent with their estimates of test diagnostic accuracy and infection prevalence (67.0%). Participants acknowledged the effects of symptomatic status and geographical location on prevalence (all p<0.001) but failed to take this information into account when estimating the positive or negative predictive value. Overall, test specificity was underestimated (91.5%, 95% CI 90.2% to 92.8%); test sensitivity was overestimated (89.7%, 95% CI 88.3% to 91.0%). Positive results were evaluated as more informative than negative ones (91.6, 95% CI 90.2 to 93.1 and 41.0, 95% CI 37.9 to 44.0, respectively, p<0.001); a short-term repetition of the test was considered more useful after a positive than a negative result (62.7, 95% CI 59.6 to 65.7 and 47.2, 95% CI 44.4 to 50.0, respectively, p=0.013). Human error and technical characteristics were assessed as more likely to be the causes of false positives (p<0.001); the level of the viral load as the cause of false negatives (p<0.001).ConclusionsWhile some aspects of the swab for SARS-CoV-2 are well grasped, others are not and may have a strong bearing on the general public's health and well-being. The obtained findings provide policymakers with a detailed picture that can guide the design and implementation of interventions for improving efficient communication with the general public as well as adherence to precautionary behaviour.

Project description:ImportancePatients with cancer and health care workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Assessing the antibody status of patients with cancer and HCWs can help understand the spread of COVID-19 in cancer care.ObjectiveTo evaluate serum SARS-CoV-2 antibody status in patients with cancer and HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan.Design, setting, and participantsParticipants were enrolled for this prospective cross-sectional study between August 3 and October 30, 2020, from 2 comprehensive cancer centers in the epidemic area around Tokyo, Japan. Patients with cancer aged 16 years or older and employees were enrolled. Participants with suspected COVID-19 infection at the time of enrollment were excluded.ExposuresCancer of any type and cancer treatment, including chemotherapy, surgery, immune checkpoint inhibitors, radiotherapy, and targeted molecular therapy.Main outcomes and measuresSeroprevalence and antibody levels in patients with cancer and HCWs. Seropositivity was defined as positivity to nucleocapsid IgG (N-IgG) and/or spike IgG (S-IgG). Serum levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid and spike proteins were measured by chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay.ResultsA total of 500 patients with cancer (median age, 62.5 years [range, 21-88 years]; 265 men [55.4%]) and 1190 HCWs (median age, 40 years [range, 20-70 years]; 382 men [25.4%]) were enrolled. In patients with cancer, 489 (97.8%) had solid tumors, and 355 (71.0%) had received anticancer treatment within 1 month. Among HCWs, 385 (32.3%) were nurses or assistant nurses, 266 (22.4%) were administrative officers, 197 (16.6%) were researchers, 179 (15.0%) were physicians, 113 (9.5%) were technicians, and 50 (4.2%) were pharmacists. The seroprevalence was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.33%-2.32%) in patients and 0.67% (95% CI, 0.29%-1.32%) in HCWs (P = .48). However, the N-IgG and S-IgG antibody levels were significantly lower in patients than in HCWs (N-IgG: β, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.21; P < .001; and S-IgG: β, -0.39; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.23; P < .001). Additionally, among patients, N-IgG levels were significantly lower in those who received chemotherapy than in those who did not (median N-IgG levels, 0.1 [interquartile range (IQR), 0-0.3] vs 0.1 [IQR, 0-0.4], P = .04). In contrast, N-IgG and S-IgG levels were significantly higher in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors than in those who did not (median N-IgG levels: 0.2 [IQR, 0.1-0.5] vs 0.1 [IQR, 0-0.3], P = .02; S-IgG levels: 0.15 [IQR, 0-0.3] vs 0.1[IQR, 0-0.2], P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of Japanese patients with cancer and HCWs, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not differ between the 2 groups; however, findings suggest that comorbid cancer and treatment with systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors, may influence the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

Dataset Information

Accessibility to SARS-CoV-2 swab test during the Covid-19 pandemic: Did age make the difference?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets