Responding to an outbreak of a novel coronavirus [agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] in December 2019, China banned travel to and from Wuhan city on 23 January 2020 and implemented a national emergency response. We investigated the spread and control of COVID-19 using a data set that included case reports, human movement, and public health interventions. The Wuhan shutdown was associated with the delayed arrival of COVID-19 in other cities by 2.91 days. Cities that implemented control measures preemptively reported fewer cases on average (13.0) in the first week of their outbreaks compared with cities that started control later (20.6). Suspending intracity public transport, closing entertainment venues, and banning public gatherings were associated with reductions in case incidence. The national emergency response appears to have delayed the growth and limited the size of the COVID-19 epidemic in China, averting hundreds of thousands of cases by 19 February (day 50).

No abstract

Background A novel coronavirus of zoonotic origin (2019-nCoV) has recently been identified in patients with acute respiratory disease. This virus is genetically similar to SARS coronavirus and bat SARS-like coronaviruses. The outbreak was initially detected in Wuhan, a major city of China, but has subsequently been detected in other provinces of China. Travel-associated cases have also been reported in a few other countries. Outbreaks in health care workers indicate human-to-human transmission. Molecular tests for rapid detection of this virus are urgently needed for early identification of infected patients. Methods We developed two 1-step quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR assays to detect two different regions (ORF1b and N) of the viral genome. The primer and probe sets were designed to react with this novel coronavirus and its closely related viruses, such as SARS coronavirus. These assays were evaluated using a panel of positive and negative controls. In addition, respiratory specimens from two 2019-nCoV-infected patients were tested. Results Using RNA extracted from cells infected by SARS coronavirus as a positive control, these assays were shown to have a dynamic range of at least seven orders of magnitude (2x10−4-2000 TCID50/reaction). Using DNA plasmids as positive standards, the detection limits of these assays were found to be below 10 copies per reaction. All negative control samples were negative in the assays. Samples from two 2019-nCoV-infected patients were positive in the tests. Conclusions The established assays can achieve a rapid detection of 2019n-CoV in human samples, thereby allowing early identification of patients.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.Setting14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.Participants1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.InterventionHospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.Main outcome measureClinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.ResultsThe rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.ConclusionsThis study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.

No abstract

Please cite this paper as: MacIntyre et al. (2011) A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit‐tested and non‐fit‐tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI: 10.1111/j.1750‐2659.2010.00198.x. Background  We compared the efficacy of medical masks, N95 respirators (fit tested and non fit tested), in health care workers (HCWs). Methods  A cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 1441 HCWs in 15 Beijing hospitals was performed during the 2008/2009 winter. Participants wore masks or respirators during the entire work shift for 4 weeks. Outcomes included clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza‐like illness (ILI), laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection and influenza. A convenience no‐mask/respirator group of 481 health workers from nine hospitals was compared. Findings  The rates of CRI (3·9% versus 6·7%), ILI (0·3% versus 0·6%), laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus (1·4% versus 2·6%) and influenza (0·3% versus 1%) infection were consistently lower for the N95 group compared to medical masks. By intention‐to‐treat analysis, when P values were adjusted for clustering, non‐fit‐tested N95 respirators were significantly more protective than medical masks against CRI, but no other outcomes were significant. The rates of all outcomes were higher in the convenience no‐mask group compared to the intervention arms. There was no significant difference in outcomes between the N95 arms with and without fit testing. Rates of fit test failure were low. In a post hoc analysis adjusted for potential confounders, N95 masks and hospital level were significant, but medical masks, vaccination, handwashing and high‐risk procedures were not. Interpretation  Rates of infection in the medical mask group were double that in the N95 group. A benefit of respirators is suggested but would need to be confirmed by a larger trial, as this study may have been underpowered. The finding on fit testing is specific to the type of respirator used in the study and cannot be generalized to other respirators. Trial registration  Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN: ACTRN12609000257268 (http://www.anzctr.org.au).

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with no specific antiviral treatments or vaccines. There is an urgent need for exploring the neutralizing antibodies from patients with different clinical characteristics. Methods A total of 117 blood samples were collected from 70 COVID-19 inpatients and convalescent patients. Antibodies were determined with a modified cytopathogenic neutralization assay (NA) based on live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The dynamics of neutralizing antibody levels at different time points with different clinical characteristics were analyzed. Results The seropositivity rate reached up to 100.0% within 20 days since onset, and remained 100.0% till days 41–53. The total geometric mean titer was 1:163.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 128.5–208.6) by NA and 1:12 441.7 (95% CI, 9754.5–15 869.2) by ELISA. The antibody level by NA and ELISA peaked on days 31–40 since onset, and then decreased slightly. In multivariate generalized estimating equation analysis, patients aged 31–45, 46–60, and 61–84 years had a higher neutralizing antibody level than those aged 16–30 years (β = 1.0470, P = .0125; β = 1.0613, P = .0307; β = 1.3713, P = .0020). Patients with a worse clinical classification had a higher neutralizing antibody titer (β = 0.4639, P = .0227). Conclusions The neutralizing antibodies were detected even at the early stage of disease, and a significant response was shown in convalescent patients.

recommended to inactivate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) before NAT. However, this procedure could theoretically disrupt nucleic acid integrity of this single-stranded RNA virus and cause false negatives in real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. METHODS:We investigated whether thermal inactivation could affect the results of viral NAT. We examined the effects of thermal inactivation on the quantitative RT-PCR results of SARS-CoV-2, particularly with regard to the rates of false-negative results for specimens carrying low viral loads. We additionally investigated the effects of different specimen types, sample preservation times, and a chemical inactivation approach on NAT. RESULTS:Our study showed increased Ct values in specimens from diagnosed COVID-19 patients in RT-PCR tests after thermal incubation. Moreover, about half of the weak-positive samples (7 of 15 samples, 46.7%) were RT-PCR negative after heat inactivation in at least one parallel testing. The use of guanidiniumbased lysis for preservation of these specimens had a smaller impact on RT-PCR results with fewer false negatives (2 of 15 samples, 13.3%) and significantly less increase in Ct values than heat inactivation. CONCLUSION: Thermal inactivation adversely affected the efficiency of RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Given the limited applicability associated with chemical inactivators, other approaches to ensure the overall protection of laboratory personnel need consideration.