No abstract

No abstract

Highlights In one day, 4% (6 in 150) of hospital visitors had asymptomatic COVID-19. Potential of visitors’ viral shedding in healthcare facilities is underestimated. SARS-CoV-2 introduction into facilities is not fully blocked by universal masking.

No abstract

Health care workers (HCW) are at a higher risk of being infected in their workplace. Out of a total of 466 HCW of Hospital São Paulo with influenza-like illnesses or any clinical suspicion of COVID-19 were tested for COVID-19 by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 169 (36%) turned out positive and were analyzed by type of exposure and hospital occupation. Data of HCW household locations were also obtained. Logistic workers had the highest positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 (p = 0.002), while nurse technicians had the highest rate among those reporting routine contacts with patients (p = 0.001). Physicians presented the lowest rate of infection, although living in most affected districts (p < 0.001). Policies and adequate training for all hospital employees may improve prevention of COVID-19 among all health care service categories.

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Brazil has the third-highest number of confirmed cases and the second-highest number of recovered patients. SARS-CoV-2 detection by real-time RT-PCR is the gold standard but requires a certified laboratory infrastructure with high-cost equipment and trained personnel. However, for large-scale testing, diagnostics should be fast, cost-effective, widely available, and deployed for the community, such as serological tests based on lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for IgM/IgG detection. We evaluated three different commercial point-of-care (POC) LFIAs for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in capillary whole blood of 100 healthcare workers (HCW) from São Paulo university hospital previously tested by RT-PCR: (1) COVID-19 IgG/IgM BIO (Bioclin, Brazil), (2) Diagnostic Kit for IgM/IgG Antibody to Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) (Livzon, China), and (3) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo, China). A total of 84 positives and 16 negatives HCW were tested. The data was also analyzed by the number of days post symptoms (DPS) in three groups: <30 ( n =26), 30–59 ( n =42), and >59 ( n =16). The observed sensibility was 85.71%, 47.62%, and 44.05% for Bioclin, Wondfo, and Livzon, respectively, with a specificity of 100% for all LFIA. Bioclin was more sensitive ( p <0.01), regardless of the DPS. Thus, the Bioclin may be used as a POC test to monitor SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in HCW.

Background Some studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an effective drug in reducing the in vitro replication of SARS-CoV-2. However, the in vivo effect of HCQ still unclear. Objectives This study aims to evaluate viral load clearance in patients with COVID-19 who underwent HCQ treatment in comparison with a control group that did not receive the drug. Study design This prospective study comprised consecutive viral load measurements in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized with a moderate illness. Patients received 400 mg of HCQ every 12 h for 10 days according to the medical decision. Nasal swab samples were collected from patients during early, intermediary, and final clinical stage of COVID-19. Results A total of 155 samples were collected from 66 patients with COVID-19 (60% female), with a median age of 58 years. The viral load between studied groups, assumed as a semiquantitative measure of cycle threshold (Ct) values, presented no significant difference within the three consecutive measures (ΔCt) ( p > 0.05). We also analyzed the ΔCt viral load at different intervals of sample collection (Δ t < 7; 7–12; and > 12 days) without significant differences at any ΔCt ( p > 0.05). Conclusion In this study, we did not observe any change in viral load reduction in vivo with the use of HCQ.

Background: Some studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an effective drug in reducing the in vitro replication of SARS-CoV-2. However, the in vivo effect of HCQ still unclear. This study aims to evaluate viral load clearance in patients with COVID-19 who underwent HCQ treatment in comparison with a control group that did not receive the drug. Methods: This prospective study comprised consecutive viral load measurements in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized with a moderate illness. Patients received 400 mg of HCQ every 12 hours for 10 days according to the medical decision. Nasal swab samples were collected at the 1st, 7th, and 14th days of the admission. Results: 155 samples were collected from 66 patients with COVID-19 (60% female), with a median age of 58 years. The viral load between studied groups, assumed as a semiquantitative measure of cycle threshold (Ct) values, presented no significant difference within the three consecutive measures (ΔCt) (p>0.05). We also analyzed the ΔCt viral load at different intervals of sample collection (Δt <7; 7-12 and >12 days) without significant differences at any ΔCt (p>0.05). Conclusion: In this study, we did not observe any change in viral load in vivo with the use of HCQ.