The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a multi-faceted rapid response by the scientific community, bringing researchers, health officials and industry together to address the ongoing public health emergency. To meet this challenge, participants need an informed approach for working safely with the etiological agent, the novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Work with infectious SARS-CoV-2 is currently restricted to high-containment laboratories, but material can be handled at a lower containment level after inactivation. Given the wide array of inactivation reagents that are being used in laboratories during this pandemic, it is vital that their effectiveness is thoroughly investigated. Here, we evaluated a total of 23 commercial reagents designed for clinical sample transportation, nucleic acid extraction and virus inactivation for their ability to inactivate SARS-CoV-2, as well as seven other common chemicals including detergents and fixatives. As part of this study, we have also tested five filtration matrices for their effectiveness at removing the cytotoxic elements of each reagent, permitting accurate determination of levels of infectious virus remaining following treatment. In addition to providing critical data informing inactivation methods and risk assessments for diagnostic and research laboratories working with SARS-CoV-2, these data provide a framework for other laboratories to validate their inactivation processes and to guide similar studies for other pathogens.

Vaccination of at least a quarter of the school population resulted in decreased influenza rates and improved school attendance. Herd immunity for unvaccinated children may occur in schools with vaccination coverage approaching 50%.

Infectious SARS-CoV-2 can be recovered from the oral cavities and saliva of COVID-19 patients with potential implications for disease transmission. Reducing viral load in patient saliva using antiviral mouthwashes may therefore have a role as a control measure in limiting virus spread, particularly in dental settings. Here, the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 inactivation by seven commercially available mouthwashes with a range of active ingredients were evaluated in vitro. We demonstrate ≥4.1 to ≥5.5 log10 reduction in SARS-CoV-2 titre following a 1 min treatment with commercially available mouthwashes containing 0.01–0.02 % stabilised hypochlorous acid or 0.58 % povidone iodine, and non-specialist mouthwashes with both alcohol-based and alcohol-free formulations designed for home use. In contrast, products containing 1.5 % hydrogen peroxide or 0.2 % chlorhexidine gluconate were ineffective against SARS-CoV-2 in these tests. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence surrounding virucidal efficacy of mouthwashes/oral rinses against SARS-CoV-2, and has important applications in reducing risk associated with aerosol generating procedures in dentistry and potentially for infection control more widely.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a multi-faceted rapid response by the scientific community, bringing researchers, health officials and industry together to address the ongoing public health emergency. To meet this challenge, participants need an informed approach for working safely with the etiological agent, the novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Work with infectious SARS-CoV-2 is currently restricted to high-containment laboratories, but material can be handled at a lower containment level after inactivation. Given the wide array of inactivation reagents that are being used in laboratories during this pandemic, it is vital that their effectiveness is thoroughly investigated. Here, we evaluated a total of 23 commercial reagents designed for clinical sample transportation, nucleic acid extraction and virus inactivation for their ability to inactivate SARS-CoV-2, as well as seven other common chemicals including detergents and fixatives. As part of this study, we have also tested five filtration matrices for their effectiveness at removing the cytotoxic elements of each reagent, permitting accurate determination of levels of infectious virus remaining following treatment. In addition to providing critical data informing inactivation methods and risk assessments for diagnostic and research laboratories working with SARS-CoV-2, these data provide a framework for other laboratories to validate their inactivation processes and to guide similar studies for other pathogens.

Background. Pulmonary function tests (PFT) have been developed to analyze tidal breathing in patients who are minimally cooperative due to age and respiratory status. This study used tidal breathing tests in the ED to measure asthma severity. Design/Method. A prospective pilot study in pediatric patients (3 to 18 yrs) with asthma/wheezing was conducted in an ED setting using respiratory inductance plethysmography and pneumotachography. The main outcome measures were testing feasibility, compliance, and predictive value for admission versus discharge. Results. Forty patients were studied, of which, 14 (35%) were admitted. Fifty-five percent of the patients were classified as a mild-intermittent asthmatic, 30% were mild-persistent asthmatics, 12.5% were moderate-persistent asthmatics, and 2.5% were severe-persistent. Heart rate was higher in admitted patients as was labored breathing index, phase angle, and asthma score. Conclusions. Tidal breathing tests provide feasible, objective assessment of patient status in the enrolled age group and may assist in the evaluation of acute asthma exacerbation in the ED. Our results demonstrate that PFT measurements, in addition to asthma scores, may be useful in indicating the severity of wheezing/asthma and the need for admission.