Background: 2019-Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreaks create challenges for hospital laboratories because thousands of samples must be evaluated each day. Sample types, interpretation methods, and corresponding laboratory standards must be established. The possibility of other infections should be assessed to provide a basis for clinical classification, isolation, and treatment. Accordingly, in the present study, we evaluated the testing methods for 2019-nCoV and co-infections. Methods: We used a fluorescence-based quantitative PCR kit urgently distributed by the Chinese CDC to detect 8274 close contacts in the Wuhan region against two loci on the 2019-nCoV genome. We also analyzed 613 patients with fever who underwent multiple tests for 13 respiratory pathogens; 316 subjects were also tested for 2019-nCoV. Findings: Among the 8274 subjects, 2745 (33.2%) had 2019-nCoV infection; 5277 (63.8%) subjects showed negative results in the 2019-nCoV nucleic acid test (non-019-nCoV); and 252 cases (3.0%) because only one target was positive, the diagnosis was not definitive. Sixteen patients who originally had only one positive target were re-examined a few days later; 14 patients (87.5%) were finally defined as 2019-nCoV-positive, and 2 (12.5%) were finally defined as negative. The positive rates of nCoV-NP and nCovORF1ab were 34.7% and 34.7%, respectively. nCoV-NP-positive only and nCovORF1ab-positive cases accounted for 1.5% and 1.5%, respectively. In the 316 patients with multiple respiratory pathogens, 104 were positive for 2019-nCov and 6/104 had co-infection with coronavirus (3/104), influenza A virus (2/104), rhinovirus (2/104), and influenza A H3N2 (1/104); the remaining 212 patients had influenza A virus (11/202), influenza A H3N2 (11/202), rhinovirus (10/202), respiratory syncytial virus (7/202), influenza B virus (6/202), metapneumovirus (4/202), and coronavirus (2/202). Interpretation: Clinical testing methods for 2019-nCoV require improvement. Importantly, 5.8% of 2019-nCoV infected and 18.4% of non-2019-nCoV-infected patients had other pathogen infections. It is important to treat combined infections and perform rapid screening to avoid cross-contamination of patients. A test that quickly and simultaneously screens as many pathogens as possible is needed.
Background: A previous study has shown that 81% of the COVID-19 patients had mild or moderate symptoms. However, most studies on the sequelae in COVID-19 patients focused on severe cases and the long-term follow-up studies on the health consequences in non-severe cases are limited. The current study aimed to assess the sequelae of COVID-19 in patients nearly 1 year after diagnosis with a particular focus on the recovery of patients with non-severe COVID-19.Methods: We enrolled 120 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 discharged from Wuhan Union hospital west district (designated hospital for COVID-19) and Fangcang shelter hospitals between January 29, 2020 and April 1, 2020. All participants were asked to complete a series of questionnaires to assess their symptoms and quality of life and for psychological evaluation. Also, pulmonary function test, chest CT, 6-min walking test (6MWT), routine blood test, liver and kidney function tests, fasting blood glucose test, lipid test, and immunoglobulin G antibody test were performed to evaluate their health.Results: The mean age of the study population was 51.6 ± 10.8 years. Of the 120 patients, 104 (86.7%) were cases of non-severe COVID-19. The follow-up study was performed between November 23, 2020 and January 11, 2021, and the median time between the diagnosis and the follow-up was 314.5 (IQR, 296–338) days. Sleep difficulties, shortness of breath, fatigue, and joint pain were common symptoms observed during follow-up and nearly one-third of the non-severe cases had these symptoms. A total of 50 (41.7%) and 45 (37.5%) patients reported anxiety and depression, respectively. And 18.3% of the patients showed negative results in the IgG test at the follow-up, which correlated with the severity of the infection (R = 0.203, p = 0.026), and the proportion of IgG negative cases in non-severe COVID-19 patients was higher than that in the severe cases (20.2 vs. 6.3%). Pulmonary diffusion impairment was reported in 30 (26.1%) out of 115 patients, and 24 (24.2%) out of the 99 non-severe cases. The values of forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), FVC/FEV1, vital capacity (VC), total lung capacity (TLC), and residual volume (RV) were less than the normal range in 1.7, 8.6, 0.9, 11.2, 7.0, and 0.9% of the patients, respectively. A total of 55 (56.7%) out of the 97 patients showed abnormal CT findings, including ground-glass opacities (GGO), bronchiectasis, nodules, lines and bands, and fibrosis. Furthermore, there was a correlation between all the SF-36-domain scores and the duration of hospitalization, pulmonary function, and a 6MWT.Conclusions: At the nearly 1-year follow-up, COVID-19 survivors still had multi-system issues, including those in the respiratory functioning, radiography, quality of life, and anxiety and depression. Moreover, non-severe cases also showed some sequelae and the proportion of IgG negative cases in the non-severe patients was higher than that in severe cases. Therefore, conducting follow-ups and preventing the reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 in this group is necessary.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.