ImportanceLong-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use.ObjectiveTo compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form–Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported.ExposuresSARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsAmong 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19–positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19–negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19–positive group vs the COVID-19–negative group only for social participation (β = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19–positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: β = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: β = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, participants in both the COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.
Objective evidence-based national surveys serve as a first step in identifying suitable point-of-care device designs, effective test clusters, and environmental operating conditions. Preliminary survey results show the need for point-of-care testing (POCT) devices using test clusters that specifically detect pathogens found in disaster scenarios. Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in southeast Asia, and the current influenza pandemic (H1N1, "swine flu") vividly illustrate lack of national and global preparedness. Gap analysis of current POCT devices versus survey results reveals how POCT needs can be fulfilled. Future thinking will help avoid the worst consequences of disasters on the horizon, such as extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and pandemic influenzas. A global effort must be made to improve POC technologies to rapidly diagnose and treat patients to improve triaging, on-site decision making, and, ultimately, economic and medical outcomes.
Background We assessed the performance of a point-of-care (POC) glucose meter system (GMS) with multitasking test strip by using the locally-smoothed (LS) median absolute difference (MAD) curve method in conjunction with a modified Bland-Altman difference plot and superimposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 tolerance bands. We analyzed performance for tight glycemic control (TGC). Methods A modified glucose oxidase enzyme with a multilayer-gold, multielectrode, four-well test strip (Stat-Strip™, NOVA Biomedical, Waltham, MA) was used. There was no test strip calibration code. Pragmatic comparison was done of GMS results versus paired plasma glucose measurements from chemistry analyzers in clinical laboratories. Venous samples (n = 1,703) were analyzed at 35 hospitals that used 20 types of chemistry analyzers. Erroneous results were identified using the Bland-Altman plot and ISO 15197 criteria. Discrepant values were analyzed for the TGC interval of 80–110 mg/dL. Results The GMS met ISO 15197 guidelines; 98.6% (410 of 416) of observations were within tolerance for glucose <75 mg/dL, and for ≥75 mg/dL, 100% were within tolerance. Paired differences (handheld minus reference) averaged −2.2 (SD 9.8) mg/dL; the median was −1 (range, −96 to 45) mg/dL. LS MAD curve analysis revealed satisfactory performance below 186 mg/dL; above 186 mg/dL, the recommended error tolerance limit (5 mg/dL) was not met. No discrepant values appeared. All points fell in Clarke Error Grid zone A. Linear regression showed y = 1.018x − 0.716 mg/dL, and r2 = 0.995. Conclusions LS MAD curves draw on human ability to discriminate performance visually. LS MAD curve and ISO 15197 performance were acceptable for TGC. POC and reference glucose calibration should be harmonized and standardized.
Aims: The goal of this study was to construct a single-tube multiplex molecular diagnostic assay using linear-after-the-exponential (LATE)-PCR for the detection of 17 microbial pathogens commonly associated with septicaemia. Methods and Results: The assay described here detects 17 pathogens associated with sepsis via amplification and analysis of gene-specific sequences. The pathogens and their targeted genes were: Klebsiella spp. (phoE); Acinetobacter baumannii (gyrB); Staphylococcus aureus (spa); Enterobacter spp. (thdF); Pseudomonas aeruginosa (toxA); coagulase-negative staphylococci (tuf), Enterococcus spp. (tuf); Candida spp. (P450). A sequence from an unidentified gene in Lactococcus lactis, served as a positive control for assay function. LATE-PCR was used to generate single-stranded amplicons that were analysed at endpoint over a wide range of temperatures in four fluorescent colours. Each target was detected by its pattern of hybridization to a sequence-specific low-temperature fluorescent probe derived from molecular beacons. Conclusions: All 17 microbial targets were detected in samples containing low numbers of pathogen genomes in the presence of high levels of human genomic DNA. Significance and Impact of the Study: This assay used new technology to achieve an advance in the field of molecular diagnostics: a single-tube assay for detection of pathogens commonly responsible for septicaemia.
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.