No abstract

Objectives:: We aimed to evaluate the role of rapid serological tests in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods:: This retrospective study enrolled 16 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reactionconfirmed symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and 58 COVID-19 negative patients at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-month period. Serial serum samples were collected and tested for antibody response using four point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) (ALLTEST 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test). Time-dependent detection sensitivity and timeliness of seroconversion were determined and compared between the four POC rapid tests. Results:: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the four tests for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after 3 weeks of symptom onset were 100% and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the rapid tests used for detection of IgM and IgG separately and those used for detection of combined total antibody (mainly IgM/IgG). There was no significant difference between the four POC rapid tests in terms of time required for determining seroconversion of COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia demonstrated shorter seroconversion time than those without pneumonia. Conclusion:: Though the POC antibody rapid tests based on LFIA showed reliable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, the results of these tests should be interpreted and applied appropriately in the context of antibody dynamic of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 patients complicated with pneumonia exhibited earlier anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response than COVID-19 patients without pneumonia.

This multicenter, retrospective study included 346 serum samples from 74 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 194 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the performance of five anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests, i.e. two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs): Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Test) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Test), and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs): Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Test), ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (ASK Test), and Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Test). We found high diagnostic sensitivities (%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Roche Test (97.4%, 93.4–99.0%), Abbott Test (94.0%, 89.1–96.8%), Wondfo Test (91.4%, 85.8–94.9%), ASK Test (97.4%, 93.4–99.0%), and Dynamiker Test (90.1%, 84.3–94.0%) after >21 days of symptom onset. Meanwhile, the diagnostic specificity was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.3–99.7%) for the Roche Test, 97.9% (95% CI, 94.8–99.2%) for the Abbott Test, and 100.0% (95% CI, 98.1–100.0%) for the three LFIAs. Cross-reactivity was observed in sera containing anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgG/IgM antibodies and autoantibodies. No difference was observed in the time to seroconversion detection of the five serological tests. Specimens from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia demonstrated a shorter seroconversion time and higher chemiluminescent signal than those without pneumonia. Our data suggested that understanding the dynamic antibody response after COVID-19 infection and performance characteristics of different serological test are crucial for the appropriate interpretation of serological test result for the diagnosis and risk assessment of patient with COVID-19 infection.

In pediatric posttransplantation patients, CMV viremia mostly occurred within 100 days after transplantation. Risk factors associated with CMV viremia include older diagnostic age, leukemic patients, unrelated donor HSCT, pretransplant ATG use, GvHD, and gastrointestinal GvHD.

This study investigated the AQI (air quality index) and atmospheric pollutants including PM 2.5 , PM 10 , CO, SO 2 , NO 2 and O 3 in Chongqing, Luzhou and Chengdu from 2017 to 2019. In addition, the impacts of the COVID-19 event on the air quality in the three cities in 2020 were compared and discussed. For the combined AQIs for the three cities, in spring, the daily AQIs ranged between 25 and 182 and averaged 72.1. In summer, the daily AQIs ranged between 24 and 206 and averaged 77.5. In autumn, the daily AQIs ranged between 22 and 170 and averaged 61.1, and in winter, the daily AQIs ranged between 28 and 375 and averaged 99.6. The distributions of the six AQI classes in spring were 3%, 94%, 3%, 0%, 0%, and 0%; in summer, they were 11%, 74%, 15%, 0%, 0% and 0%; in autumn, they were 29%, 70%, 1%, 0%, 0%, and 0%, and in winter, they were 1%, 52%, 44%, 3%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. The average AQIs, in order, were Chengdu (85.4) > Chongqing (73.8) > Luzhou (73.2). Both the highest AQIs and PM 2.5 (as the major indicatory air pollutant) occurred mainly in the low temperature season (January, December, and February), while O 3 was the main air pollutant in June and August when the weather was hot. In February 2020, during the epidemic prevention and control actions taken in response to COVID-19 for the three cities, the combined AQIs for the top five days with the highest

Background Frontline health care workers, including physicians, are at high risk of contracting coronavirus disease (COVID-19) owing to their exposure to patients suspected of having COVID-19. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and feasibility of a double triage and telemedicine protocol in improving infection control in the emergency department (ED). Methods In this retrospective study, we recruited patients aged ≥20 years referred to the ED of the National Taiwan University Hospital between March 1 and April 30, 2020. A double triage and telemedicine protocol was developed to triage suggested COVID-19 cases and minimize health workers’ exposure to this disease. We categorized patients attending video interviews into a telemedicine group and patients experiencing face-to-face interviews into a conventional group. A questionnaire was used to assess how patients perceived the quality of the interviews and their communication with physicians as well as perceptions of stress, discrimination, and privacy. Each question was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Physicians’ total exposure time and total evaluation time were treated as primary outcomes, and the mean scores of the questions were treated as secondary outcomes. Results The final sample included 198 patients, including 93 cases (47.0%) in the telemedicine group and 105 cases (53.0%) in the conventional group. The total exposure time in the telemedicine group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional group (4.7 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was significantly longer than that in the conventional group (12.2 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001). After controlling for potential confounders, the total exposure time in the telemedicine group was 4.6 minutes shorter than that in the conventional group (95% CI −5.7 to −3.5, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was 2.8 minutes longer than that in the conventional group (95% CI −1.6 to −4.0, P<.001). The mean scores of the patient questionnaire were high in both groups (4.5/5 to 4.7/5 points). Conclusions The implementation of the double triage and telemedicine protocol in the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic has high potential to improve infection control.

Close monitoring of the important risk factors including underlying digestive tract diseases, seizure attack and conscious disturbance were recommended during the influenza season.

The COVID-19 epidemic discovered and reported at the end of December 2019 and began spreading rapidly around the world. The impact of the COVID-19 event on the trip intensity, AQI (air quality index), and air pollutants, including PM 2.5 , PM 10 , SO 2 , CO, NO 2 , and O 3 in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Foshan (the so-called 'three cities') from January 12 to March 27, in 2019 and 2020, are compared and discussed. In 2020, the combined trip intensity in the three cities ranged between 0.73 and 5.54 and averaged 2.57, which was 28.4% lower than that in 2019. In terms of the combined AQIs for the three cities, from January 12 to March 26, 2020, the daily AQIs ranged between 21.0 and 121.3 and averaged 56.4, which was 16.0% lower than that in 2019. The average AQIs in order were Guangzhou (57.5) > Foshan (54.1) > Shenzhen (44.1). In 2019, the distribution proportions of the six AQI classes were 45.2%, 50.4%, 4.40%, 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively, while those in 2020 were 62.7%, 37.3%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 0%, respectively. For the combined data for the three cities, on the top five days with the highest AQIs during the epidemic period, the average concentrations of