A positive association between mental health conditions and poor asthma control has been documented in the World Trade Center-exposed population. Whether factors such as medication adherence mediate this association is unknown. The study population was drawn from adult participants of the World Trade Center Health Registry Cohort who self-reported as asthmatic after the disaster and who were currently prescribed a long-term control medication (LTCM). Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the associations between mental health condition (PTSD, depression, or anxiety) and continuous adherence and Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores. In the study sample of 1,293, 49% were not adherent to their LTCM and two thirds reported poorly or very poorly controlled asthma. Presence of any mental health condition was associated with a 2-point decline in ACT and half a point decrease in adherence scores. However, in the multivariable model, better adherence was statistically significantly associated with slightly worse control. The total effect of mental health on asthma control was opposite in sign from the product of the paths between mental health and adherence and adherence and asthma control; we therefore found no evidence to support the hypothesis that adherence mediated the negative association between poor mental health and adequate asthma control. More research is needed to understand the complex causal mechanisms that underlie the association between mental and respiratory health.

Monitoring antibody prevalence is a valuable tool to evaluate the burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a community, identify risk factors, and assess the impact of clinical and public health intervention strategies. The antibody prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children in the United States in early 2022 was estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be 74.2%, using seroprevalence from a variety of sources. A study by the New Jersey Department of Health in late 2022/early 2023 in unvaccinated children found a lower prevalence, 68% when using a gum swab method to detect antibodies. This study compared the accuracy of the gum swab method to detect antibodies with simultaneously obtained serological samples in additional children. This cross-sectional study recruited well children, not vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2, aged 18 months to 11 years, who were scheduled for routine bloodwork at an inner-city university-based pediatric clinic. With parental consent, an extra 5 cc of blood and a gum swab sample were collected. Results from Diabetomics CovAb SARS-CoV-2 gum swab antibody test and Rutgers New Jersey Medical School enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay serology test for spike protein antibody were compared. The seropositivity of these paired samples was compared using McNemar’s test, Cohen’s kappa statistic, and other diagnostic accuracy statistics. From June through August 2023, 86 children were recruited. Antibody positivity by gum swab was 70.9% and by serology was 87.2%. The Cohen’s kappa statistic was 0.39 indicating minimal agreement and McNemar’s test was significant ( P -value of 0.0010). Compared with serology, gum swab was 78.7% sensitive (95% CI 68.7% to 87.3%) and 81.8% specific (95% CI 48.2% to 97.7%). Positive and negative predictive values were 97.5% and 29.9%, respectively, and accuracy was 79.0%. Sensitivity in non-Hispanic versus Hispanic children was 74.2% versus 82.5%, and in children 6–11 years versus 18 months to 5 years, it was 74.2% versus 81.8%. While the gum swab method of antibody detection is not as sensitive or specific as serology, sample collection can be done in settings where phlebotomy is not feasible. This method could be useful in non-clinical settings such as surveillance, for assessing epidemiological trends and associations. IMPORTANCE: Recently a study determining the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in unvaccinated children in NJ (Katic et al. 2023. Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting; Washington, D.C. https://2023.pas-meeting.org/searchbyposterbucket.asp?bm=Public+Health+%26+Prevention&t=Public+Health+%26+Prevention&pfp=Track ) was conducted using a gum swab method for antibody detection. The Diabetomics CovAB test, which qualitatively identifies antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is a point-of-care, low-cost test, that is easy to administer in children. While this test provides sensitive and specific results in adults [US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2022. Center for devices and radiological health. EUA authorized serology test performance. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance ], data on its accuracy in children is lacking. As a follow-up to the above-mentioned study, we compared the results of the gum swab test to a serologic antibody test. We found that the gum swab test was inferior to serology but was fairly sensitive and specific with a high positive predictive value. While the test is not ideal for diagnostic purposes in children it can be a valuable tool for public health officials and pediatricians to understand the extent of past health interventions.

The Flu-FIT program aims to increase colorectal cancer screening rates by offering a home fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at the time of annual influenza immunization. This program was piloted at a VA campus in New Jersey during the 2018-2019 influenza season, with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates. In the 2019-2020 season, the program was implemented in 6 primary care teams; 6 additional teams maintaining standard of care served as a comparison group. A total of 816 patients aged 50 to 75 years were eligible for participation; 509 patients were available for analysis, 242 in the Flu-FIT group and 267 in the comparison group. The Flu-FIT group patients were 2.4 times more likely to accept FIT kits (95% confidence interval: 1.6-3.6, P = .001). The colorectal cancer screening rates increased 77.0% to 81.9% in the Flu-FIT group and 77.0% to 79.8% in the comparison group (P > .05).