No abstract

Extended community testing constitutes one of the main strategic pillars in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 genome on nasopharyngeal swab samples is currently the reference test. While displaying excellent analytical sensitivity and specificity, this test is costly, often requires a substantial turnaround time, and, more importantly, is subject to reagent and other material shortages. To complement this technology, rapid antigen tests have been developed and made available worldwide, allowing cheap, quick, and decentralized SARS-CoV-2 testing. The main drawback of these tests is the reduced sensitivity when RT-PCR is the gold standard. In this study, we evaluate Visby an innovative, portable, easy-to-use RT-PCR point-of-care (POC) diagnostic device. Our retrospective analysis shows that overall, compared to the Cobas 6800 RT-qPCR assay (Roche), this RT-PCR POC technology detects SARS-CoV-2 RNA with 95% sensitivity (95%CI = 86.3–99%) and 100% specificity (95% CI = 80.5–100%). For samples with cycle-threshold values below 31, we observed 100% sensitivity (95% CI = 66.4–100%). While showing an analytical sensitivity slightly below that of a standard RT-qPCR system, the evaluated Visby RT-PCR POC device may prove to be an interesting diagnostic alternative in the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially combining the practical advantages of rapid antigen tests and the robust analytical performances of nucleic acid detection systems.

No abstract

No abstract

Background many Spanish hospitals converted scheduled in-person visits to telephone visits during the COVID-19 lockdown. There is scarce information about the performance of those visits. Aim to compare telephone visits during the COVID-19 lockdown period with previous in-person visits Design retrospective descriptive study. Methods telephone visits from 15 March to 31 May 2020 were compared with in-person visits during the same period in 2019. Main Measures the proportions of both groups were compared in term of failure to contact patient, requested diagnostic tests/referrals, discharges, admissions, and emergency visits within 30-60 days. A sample of patients, and all participating physicians completed surveys. Z-score test was used (statistical significance p < 0.05). Results 5602 telephone visits were conducted. In comparison to in-person visits, telephone visits showed higher rates of visit compliance (95.9% vs 85.2%, p < 0.001) and discharges (22.12% vs 11.82%; p < 0.001), and lower number of ancillary tests and referrals. During the 30-day and 60-day period following the telephone visit a reduction of 52% and 47% in the combined number of emergency department visits and hospital admissions was observed compared to in-person visits (p < 0.01). Of the 120 patients surveyed, 95% were satisfied/very satisfied with the telephone visits. Of the 26 physicians, 84.6% considered telephone visits were useful to prioritise patients. Conclusions during health emergencies, previously scheduled outpatient in-person visits can be converted to telephone visits, reducing absenteeism, increasing the rate of discharges, and reducing ancillary tests and referrals without increasing the rate of hospital admissions or emergency department visits.s