Dr. Feldstein and colleagues reply: We agree with Belot and Levy-Bruhl that, on the basis of the temporal relationship between hospitalizations for Covid-19 and cases of MIS-C, we can infer that MIS-C cases would be infrequent in the absence of a second wave of Covid-19. This correspondence provides an opportunity to update our initial report of the temporal representation of MIS-C cases observed between March 15 and May 20, 2020, by the Overcoming Covid-19 hospital surveillance system in the United States. Sites in our study reported 213 cases from March 15 to May 20, 2020, and an additional 38 cases from May 21 to July 4, 2020 (Figure 1). Similar to the Covid-19 outbreak data from France, the incidence of MIS-C cases in the United States decreased as the percentage of tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 decreased, starting in May. However, unlike France, the United States has had sustained high transmission of SARS-CoV-2 since the end of June 2020. Given the strong temporal association between SARS-CoV-2 activity and MIS-C in various locations of the world, as noted by Dufort et al. and others,1,2 it is possible we will see another increase in the incidence of MIS-C cases in the United States. Clinicians should be vigilant for signs of multisystem inflammatory disease in children who have had Covid-19 or have had exposure to others with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This article summarizes what is currently known about the 2019 novel coronavirus and offers interim guidance.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of real-world effectiveness of immunomodulatory medications for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may guide therapy. METHODS: We analyzed surveillance data on inpatients younger than 21 years of age who had MIS-C and were admitted to 1 of 58 U.S. hospitals between March 15 and October 31, 2020. The effectiveness of initial immunomodulatory therapy (day 0, indicating the first day any such therapy for MIS-C was given) with intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids, as compared with IVIG alone, was evaluated with propensity-score matching and inverse probability weighting, with adjustment for baseline MIS-C severity and demographic characteristics. The primary outcome was cardiovascular dysfunction (a composite of left ventricular dysfunction or shock resulting in the use of vasopressors) on or after day 2. Secondary outcomes included the components of the primary outcome, the receipt of adjunctive treatment (glucocorticoids in patients not already receiving glucocorticoids on day 0, a biologic, or a second dose of IVIG) on or after day 1, and persistent or recurrent fever on or after day 2. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients with MIS-C (median age, 8.7 years) received at least one immunomodulatory therapy; 75% had been previously healthy, and 9 died. In the propensity-score-matched analysis, initial treatment with IVIG plus glucocorticoids (103 patients) was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than IVIG alone (103 patients) (17% vs. 31%; risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.94). The risks of the components of the composite outcome were also lower among those who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids: left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.15), and shock resulting in vasopressor use in 13% and 24% (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.00). The use of adjunctive therapy was lower among patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids than among those who received IVIG alone (34% vs. 70%; risk ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.65), but the risk of fever was unaffected (31% and 40%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.13). The inverse-probability-weighted analysis confirmed the results of the propensity-score-matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among children and adolescents with MIS-C, initial treatment with IVIG plus glucocorticoids was associated with a lower risk of new or persistent cardiovascular dysfunction than IVIG alone. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

IMPORTANCE: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is associated with recent or current SARS-CoV-2 infection. Information on MIS-C incidence is limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate population-based MIS-C incidence per 1 000 000 person-months and to estimate MIS-C incidence per 1 000 000 SARS-CoV-2 infections in persons younger than 21 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used enhanced surveillance data to identify persons with MIS-C during April to June 2020, in 7 jurisdictions reporting to both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention national surveillance and to Overcoming COVID-19, a multicenter MIS-C study. Denominators for population-based estimates were derived from census estimates; denominators for incidence per 1 000 000 SARS-CoV-2 infections were estimated by applying published age- and month-specific multipliers accounting for underdetection of reported COVID-19 case counts. Jurisdictions included Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York (excluding New York City), and Pennsylvania. Data analyses were conducted from August to December 2020. EXPOSURES: Race/ethnicity, sex, and age group (ie, ≤5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 years). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall and stratum-specific adjusted estimated MIS-C incidence per 1 000 000 person-months and per 1 000 000 SARS-CoV-2 infections. RESULTS: In the 7 jurisdictions examined, 248 persons with MIS-C were reported (median [interquartile range] age, 8 [4-13] years; 133 [53.6%] male; 96 persons [38.7%] were Hispanic or Latino; 75 persons [30.2%] were Black). The incidence of MIS-C per 1 000 000 person-months was 5.1 (95% CI, 4.5-5.8) persons. Compared with White persons, incidence per 1 000 000 person-months was higher among Black persons (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 9.26 [95% CI, 6.15-13.93]), Hispanic or Latino persons (aIRR, 8.92 [95% CI, 6.00-13.26]), and Asian or Pacific Islander (aIRR, 2.94 [95% CI, 1.49-5.82]) persons. MIS-C incidence per 1 000 000 SARS-CoV-2 infections was 316 (95% CI, 278-357) persons and was higher among Black (aIRR, 5.62 [95% CI, 3.68-8.60]), Hispanic or Latino (aIRR, 4.26 [95% CI, 2.85-6.38]), and Asian or Pacific Islander persons (aIRR, 2.88 [95% CI, 1.42-5.83]) compared with White persons. For both analyses, incidence was highest among children aged 5 years or younger (4.9 [95% CI, 3.7-6.6] children per 1 000 000 person-months) and children aged 6 to 10 years (6.3 [95% CI, 4.8-8.3] children per 1 000 000 person-months). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, MIS-C was a rare complication associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Estimates for population-based incidence and incidence among persons with infection were higher among Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian or Pacific Islander persons. Further study is needed to understand variability by race/ethnicity and age group.

IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects the nervous system in adult patients. The spectrum of neurologic involvement in children and adolescents is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To understand the range and severity of neurologic involvement among children and adolescents associated with COVID-19. SETTING, DESIGN, AND PARTICIPANTS: Case series of patients (age <21 years) hospitalized between March 15, 2020, and December 15, 2020, with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test result (reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and/or antibody) at 61 US hospitals in the Overcoming COVID-19 public health registry, including 616 (36%) meeting criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Patients with neurologic involvement had acute neurologic signs, symptoms, or diseases on presentation or during hospitalization. Life-threatening involvement was adjudicated by experts based on clinical and/or neuroradiologic features. EXPOSURES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Type and severity of neurologic involvement, laboratory and imaging data, and outcomes (death or survival with new neurologic deficits) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of 1695 patients (909 [54%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 9.1 [2.4-15.3] years), 365 (22%) from 52 sites had documented neurologic involvement. Patients with neurologic involvement were more likely to have underlying neurologic disorders (81 of 365 [22%]) compared with those without (113 of 1330 [8%]), but a similar number were previously healthy (195 [53%] vs 723 [54%]) and met criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (126 [35%] vs 490 [37%]). Among those with neurologic involvement, 322 (88%) had transient symptoms and survived, and 43 (12%) developed life-threatening conditions clinically adjudicated to be associated with COVID-19, including severe encephalopathy (n = 15; 5 with splenial lesions), stroke (n = 12), central nervous system infection/demyelination (n = 8), Guillain-Barré syndrome/variants (n = 4), and acute fulminant cerebral edema (n = 4). Compared with those without life-threatening conditions (n = 322), those with life-threatening neurologic conditions had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios (median, 12.2 vs 4.4) and higher reported frequency of D-dimer greater than 3 μg/mL fibrinogen equivalent units (21 [49%] vs 72 [22%]). Of 43 patients who developed COVID-19-related life-threatening neurologic involvement, 17 survivors (40%) had new neurologic deficits at hospital discharge, and 11 patients (26%) died. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, many children and adolescents hospitalized for COVID-19 or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children had neurologic involvement, mostly transient symptoms. A range of life-threatening and fatal neurologic conditions associated with COVID-19 infrequently occurred. Effects on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown.

IMPORTANCE: Refinement of criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may inform efforts to improve health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of children and adolescents with MIS-C vs those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SETTING, DESIGN, AND PARTICIPANTS: Case series of 1116 patients aged younger than 21 years hospitalized between March 15 and October 31, 2020, at 66 US hospitals in 31 states. Final date of follow-up was January 5, 2021. Patients with MIS-C had fever, inflammation, multisystem involvement, and positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or antibody test results or recent exposure with no alternate diagnosis. Patients with COVID-19 had positive RT-PCR test results and severe organ system involvement. EXPOSURE: SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presenting symptoms, organ system complications, laboratory biomarkers, interventions, and clinical outcomes. Multivariable regression was used to compute adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) of factors associated with MIS-C vs COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 1116 patients (median age, 9.7 years; 45% female), 539 (48%) were diagnosed with MIS-C and 577 (52%) with COVID-19. Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to be 6 to 12 years old (40.8% vs 19.4%; absolute risk difference [RD], 21.4% [95% CI, 16.1%-26.7%]; aRR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.33-1.72] vs 0-5 years) and non-Hispanic Black (32.3% vs 21.5%; RD, 10.8% [95% CI, 5.6%-16.0%]; aRR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.17-1.76] vs White). Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to have cardiorespiratory involvement (56.0% vs 8.8%; RD, 47.2% [95% CI, 42.4%-52.0%]; aRR, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.55-3.50] vs respiratory involvement), cardiovascular without respiratory involvement (10.6% vs 2.9%; RD, 7.7% [95% CI, 4.7%-10.6%]; aRR, 2.49 [95% CI, 2.05-3.02] vs respiratory involvement), and mucocutaneous without cardiorespiratory involvement (7.1% vs 2.3%; RD, 4.8% [95% CI, 2.3%-7.3%]; aRR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.84-2.85] vs respiratory involvement). Patients with MIS-C had higher neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (median, 6.4 vs 2.7, P < .001), higher C-reactive protein level (median, 152 mg/L vs 33 mg/L; P < .001), and lower platelet count (<150 ×103 cells/μL [212/523 {41%} vs 84/486 {17%}, P < .001]). A total of 398 patients (73.8%) with MIS-C and 253 (43.8%) with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 10 (1.9%) with MIS-C and 8 (1.4%) with COVID-19 died during hospitalization. Among patients with MIS-C with reduced left ventricular systolic function (172/503, 34.2%) and coronary artery aneurysm (57/424, 13.4%), an estimated 91.0% (95% CI, 86.0%-94.7%) and 79.1% (95% CI, 67.1%-89.1%), respectively, normalized within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This case series of patients with MIS-C and with COVID-19 identified patterns of clinical presentation and organ system involvement. These patterns may help differentiate between MIS-C and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of mild COVID-19 illness are non-specific and may persist for prolonged periods. Effects on quality of life of persistent poor physical or mental health associated with COVID-19 are not well understood. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and matched control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection at outpatient facilities associated with 11 medical centers in the United States were interviewed to assess symptoms, illness duration, and health-related quality of life. Duration of symptoms, health-related quality of life measures, and days of poor physical health by symptoms experienced during illness were compared between case patients and controls using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Symptoms associated with COVID-19 case status were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 320 participants included, 157 were COVID-19 cases and 163 were SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Loss of taste or smell was reported by 63% of cases and 6% of controls and was strongly associated with COVID-19 in logistic regression models (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 32.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6-83.1). COVID-19 cases were more likely than controls to have experienced fever, body aches, weakness, or fatigue during illness, and to report ≥1 persistent symptom more than 14 days after symptom onset (50% vs 32%, P < .001). Cases reported significantly more days of poor physical health during the past 14 days than controls (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Differentiating COVID-19 from other acute illnesses will require widespread diagnostic testing, especially during influenza seasons. Persistent COVID-19-related symptoms may negatively affect quality of life, even among those initially presenting with mild illness.

BACKGROUND: Diphtheria, a life-threatening respiratory disease, is caused mainly by toxin-producing strains of Corynebacterium diphtheriae, while nontoxigenic Corynebacteria, such as C. pseudodiphtheriticum rarely causes diphtheria-like illness. Recently several global diphtheria outbreaks have resulted from the breakdown of healthcare infrastructures particularly in countries experiencing political conflict. This report summarizes a laboratory and epidemiological investigation of a diphtheria outbreak among Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals in Bangladesh. METHODS: Specimens and clinical information were collected from patients presenting at Diphtheria Treatment Centers. Swabs were tested for toxin-gene (tox) bearing C. diphtheriae by real-time (RT) PCR and culture. The isolation of another Corynebacterium species prompted further laboratory investigation. RESULTS: Among 382 patients; 153 (40%) tested tox-positive for C. diphtheriae by RT-PCR; 31 (20%) PCR-positive swabs were culture-confirmed. RT-PCR revealed 78% (298/382) of patients tested positive for C. pseudodiphtheriticum. Of patients positive for only C. diphtheriae, 63% (17/27) had severe disease compared to 55% (69/126) positive for both Corynebacterium species, and 38% (66/172) for only C. pseudodiphtheriticum. CONCLUSIONS: We report the confirmation of a diphtheria outbreak and identification of a co-circulating Corynebacterium species. The high proportion of C. pseudodiphtheriticum co-detection may explain why many suspected patients testing negative for C. diphtheriae presented with diphtheria-like symptoms.

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and <1.0 at the follow-up visit, was assessed. Overall, 194 (6.0%) of 3,248 participants had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1). Upon repeat testing approximately 60 days later (range = 50-91 days), 146 (93.6%) of 156 participants experienced a decline in antibody response indicated by a lower signal-to-threshold ratio at the follow-up visit, compared with the baseline visit, and 44 (28.2%) experienced seroreversion. Participants with higher initial antibody responses were more likely to have antibodies detected at the follow-up test than were those who had a lower initial antibody response. Whether decay in these antibodies increases risk for reinfection and disease remains unanswered. However, these results suggest that serology testing at a single time point is likely to underestimate the number of persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a negative serologic test result might not reliably exclude prior infection.

Since March 2020, large-scale efforts to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have continued. Mitigation measures to reduce workplace exposures have included work site policies to support flexible work site options, including telework, whereby employees work remotely without commuting to a central place of work.* Opportunities to telework have varied across industries among U.S. jobs where telework options are feasible (1). However, little is known about the impact of telework on risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. A case-control investigation was conducted to compare telework between eligible symptomatic persons who received positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results (case-patients, 153) and symptomatic persons with negative test results (control-participants, 161). Eligible participants were identified in outpatient health care facilities during July 2020. Among employed participants who reported on their telework status during the 2 weeks preceding illness onset (248), the percentage who were able to telework on a full- or part-time basis was lower among case-patients (35%; 42 of 120) than among control-participants (53%; 68 of 128) (p<0.01). Case-patients were more likely than were control-participants to have reported going exclusively to an office or school setting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-2.7) in the 2 weeks before illness onset. The association was also observed when further restricting to the 175 participants who reported working in a profession outside the critical infrastructure(†) (aOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.3-3.6). Providing the option to work from home or telework when possible, is an important consideration for reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In industries where telework options are not available, worker safety measures should continue to be scaled up to reduce possible worksite exposures.

To determine prevalence of, seroprevalence of, and potential exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among a cohort of evacuees returning to the United States from Wuhan, China, in January 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional study of quarantined evacuees from 1 repatriation flight. Overall, 193 of 195 evacuees completed exposure surveys and submitted upper respiratory or serum specimens or both at arrival in the United States. Nearly all evacuees had taken preventive measures to limit potential exposure while in Wuhan, and none had detectable SARS-CoV-2 in upper respiratory tract specimens, suggesting the absence of asymptomatic respiratory shedding among this group at the time of testing. Evidence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 1 evacuee, who reported experiencing no symptoms or high-risk exposures in the previous 2 months. These findings demonstrated that this group of evacuees posed a low risk of introducing SARS-CoV-2 to the United States.

This study examines the duration of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in health care personnel over a 60-day period in Nashville, Tennessee.

With rapid and accurate molecular influenza testing now widely available in clinical settings, influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies can prospectively select participants for enrollment based on real-time results rather than enrolling all eligible patients regardless of influenza status, as in the traditional test-negative design (TND). Thus, we explore advantages and disadvantages of modifying the TND for estimating VE by using real-time, clinically available viral testing results paired with acute respiratory infection eligibility criteria for identifying influenza cases and test-negative controls prior to enrollment. This modification, which we have called the real-time test-negative design (rtTND), has the potential to improve influenza VE studies by optimizing the case-to-test-negative control ratio, more accurately classifying influenza status, improving study efficiency, reducing study cost, and increasing study power to adequately estimate VE. Important considerations for limiting biases in the rtTND include the need for comprehensive clinical influenza testing at study sites and accurate influenza tests.

Community and close contact exposures continue to drive the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CDC and other public health authorities recommend community mitigation strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1,2). Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities. Potential exposures, such as close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, have primarily been assessed among COVID-19 cases, without a non-COVID-19 comparison group (3,4). To assess community and close contact exposures associated with COVID-19, exposures reported by case-patients (154) were compared with exposures reported by control-participants (160). Case-patients were symptomatic adults (persons aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Control-participants were symptomatic outpatient adults from the same health care facilities who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Close contact with a person with known COVID-19 was more commonly reported among case-patients (42%) than among control-participants (14%). Case-patients were more likely to have reported dining at a restaurant (any area designated by the restaurant, including indoor, patio, and outdoor seating) in the 2 weeks preceding illness onset than were control-participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-3.8). Restricting the analysis to participants without known close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, case-patients were more likely to report dining at a restaurant (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.9-4.3) or going to a bar/coffee shop (aOR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.5-10.1) than were control-participants. Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to places that offer on-site eating or drinking, might be important risk factors for acquiring COVID-19. As communities reopen, efforts to reduce possible exposures at locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

United States guidelines on social distancing were issued on March 16, 2020, following early community transmission. 1 To ascertain sources of presumptive exposure risk factors among non‐hospitalized adults with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the period coinciding with issuance of national social distancing guidelines, we performed a cross‐sectional telephone survey of adults with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection diagnosed within the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) system in Nashville, Tennessee.

Prolonged symptom duration and disability are common in adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Characterizing return to baseline health among outpatients with milder COVID-19 illness is important for understanding the full spectrum of COVID-19-associated illness and tailoring public health messaging, interventions, and policy. During April 15-June 25, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had a first positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at an outpatient visit at one of 14 U.S. academic health care systems in 13 states. Interviews were conducted 14-21 days after the test date. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, baseline chronic medical conditions, symptoms present at the time of testing, whether those symptoms had resolved by the interview date, and whether they had returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days from testing date), including 26% among those aged 18-34 years, 32% among those aged 35-49 years, and 47% among those aged ≥50 years. Among respondents reporting cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath at the time of testing, 43%, 35%, and 29%, respectively, continued to experience these symptoms at the time of the interview. These findings indicate that COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted. Preventative measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and the consistent and correct use of face coverings in public, should be strongly encouraged to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Among 249 healthcare personnel who worked in hospital units with COVID-19 patients for one month, 19 (7.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Only 11 (57.9%) of the 19 personnel with positive serology reported symptoms of a prior illness, suggesting asymptomatic healthcare personnel could be an important source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the epidemiology and clinical course of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and its temporal association with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is important, given the clinical and public health implications of the syndrome. METHODS: We conducted targeted surveillance for MIS-C from March 15 to May 20, 2020, in pediatric health centers across the United States. The case definition included six criteria: serious illness leading to hospitalization, an age of less than 21 years, fever that lasted for at least 24 hours, laboratory evidence of inflammation, multisystem organ involvement, and evidence of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) based on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), antibody testing, or exposure to persons with Covid-19 in the past month. Clinicians abstracted the data onto standardized forms. RESULTS: We report on 186 patients with MIS-C in 26 states. The median age was 8.3 years, 115 patients (62%) were male, 135 (73%) had previously been healthy, 131 (70%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR or antibody testing, and 164 (88%) were hospitalized after April 16, 2020. Organ-system involvement included the gastrointestinal system in 171 patients (92%), cardiovascular in 149 (80%), hematologic in 142 (76%), mucocutaneous in 137 (74%), and respiratory in 131 (70%). The median duration of hospitalization was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 10); 148 patients (80%) received intensive care, 37 (20%) received mechanical ventilation, 90 (48%) received vasoactive support, and 4 (2%) died. Coronary-artery aneurysms (z scores >/=2.5) were documented in 15 patients (8%), and Kawasaki's disease-like features were documented in 74 (40%). Most patients (171 [92%]) had elevations in at least four biomarkers indicating inflammation. The use of immunomodulating therapies was common: intravenous immune globulin was used in 144 (77%), glucocorticoids in 91 (49%), and interleukin-6 or 1RA inhibitors in 38 (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with SARS-CoV-2 led to serious and life-threatening illness in previously healthy children and adolescents. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Descriptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States have focused primarily on hospitalized patients. Reports documenting exposures to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, have generally been described within congregate settings, such as meat and poultry processing plants (1) and long-term care facilities (2). Understanding individual behaviors and demographic characteristics of patients with COVID-19 and risks for severe illness requiring hospitalization can inform efforts to reduce transmission. During April 15-May 24, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged >/=18 years who had positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results for SARS-CoV-2 in outpatient and inpatient settings at 11 U.S. academic medical centers in nine states. Respondents were contacted 14-21 days after SARS-CoV-2 testing and asked about their demographic characteristics, underlying chronic conditions, symptoms experienced on the date of testing, and potential exposures to SARS-CoV-2 during the 2 weeks before illness onset (or the date of testing among those who did not report symptoms at the time of testing). Among 350 interviewed patients (271 [77%] outpatients and 79 [23%] inpatients), inpatients were older, more likely to be Hispanic and to report dyspnea than outpatients. Fewer inpatients (39%, 20 of 51) reported a return to baseline level of health at 14-21 days than did outpatients (64%, 150 of 233) (p = 0.001). Overall, approximately one half (46%) of patients reported known close contact with someone with COVID-19 during the preceding 2 weeks. This was most commonly a family member (45%) or a work colleague (34%). Approximately two thirds (64%, 212 of 333) of participants were employed; only 35 of 209 (17%) were able to telework. These findings highlight the need for screening, case investigation, contact tracing, and isolation of infected persons to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of community transmission. The need for enhanced measures to ensure workplace safety, including ensuring social distancing and more widespread use of cloth face coverings, are warranted (3).