Neuroimaging is increasingly used to supplement the clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) by showing reduced occipital metabolism and perfusion and reduced striatal dopaminergic innervation. We aimed to optimize the interpretation of 18 F-FDG PET images for differentiating DLB from Alzheimer disease (AD) and to compare the results with dopamine transporter imaging using 123 I-b-carbomethoxy-3ß-(4-iodophenyl)-tropane ( 123 I-b-CIT) SPECT. Methods: Fourteen subjects with a clinical diagnosis of DLB and 10 with AD underwent both 18 F-FDG PET and 123 I-b-CIT SPECT. Four DLB and 1 AD diagnoses were subsequently confirmed at autopsy. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for visual interpretation by 3 readers of standard 3-plane and stereotactic surface projection 18 F-FDG PET images, receiver-operating-characteristic analysis of regional 18 F-FDG uptake, and a cutoff value for the striatal-to-occipital binding ratio of b-CIT defined by receiver-operating-characteristic analysis. Results: Visual interpretation of 3-plane 18 F-FDG PET images had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 93% for DLB, slightly higher than the results with the stereotactic surface projection images. Regionally, hypometabolism in the lateral occipital cortex had the highest sensitivity (88%), but relative preservation of the mid or posterior cingulate gyrus (cingulate island sign) had the highest specificity (100%). Region-of-interest analysis revealed that occipital hypometabolism and relative preservation of the posterior cingulate both had a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 80%. b-CIT achieved 100% accuracy and greater effect size than did 18 F-FDG PET (Cohen d 5 4.1 vs. 1.9). Conclusion: Both 18 F-FDG PET and 123 I-b-CIT SPECT appear useful for the diagnosis of DLB, although the latter provides more robust results. The cingulate island sign may enhance the specificity of 18 F-FDG PET.

Background Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little premarket validation. Methods Performance characteristics for 5 PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Results Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.1%–60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%–75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI, 89.2%–98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 96.1%–100.0%). ELISA sensitivity for IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%–75.6%), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI, 85.0%–98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI, 53.2%–68.4%), rising to 91.2% (95% CI, 81.8%–96.7%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset, with specificity 94.4% (95% CI, 89.2%–97.5%). Conclusions Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.

Background: Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little pre-market validation. Methods: Performance characteristics for five PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT). Results: Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% CI 43.1 to 60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI 59.4-75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI 89.2-98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI 96.1-100.0%). Overall ELISA sensitivity for either IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI 59.4-75.6), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI 85.0-98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. Overall, sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI 53.2-68.4%), rising to 91.2%% (95% CI 81.8-96.7%) for samples collected >14 days post-symptom onset, with a specificity 94.4% (95% CI 89.2-97.5%), Conclusion: Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in the reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.

Objectives To design and evaluate 3D‐printed nasal swabs for collection of samples for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing. Design An iterative design process was employed. Laboratory evaluation included in vitro assessment of mock nasopharyngeal samples spiked with two different concentrations of gamma‐irradiated SARS‐CoV‐2. A prospective clinical study compared SARS‐CoV‐2 and human cellular material recovery by 3D‐printed swabs and standard nasopharyngeal swabs. Setting, participants Royal Melbourne Hospital, May 2020. Participants in the clinical evaluation were 50 hospital staff members attending a COVID‐19 screening clinic and two inpatients with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19. Intervention In the clinical evaluation, a flocked nasopharyngeal swab sample was collected with the Copan ESwab and a mid‐nasal sample from the other nostril was collected with the 3D‐printed swab. Results In the laboratory evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in mock samples collected with 3D‐printed swabs and two standard swabs was complete. In the clinical evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to RNase P detection (a surrogate measure of adequate collection of human cellular material) in samples collected from 50 hospital staff members with standard and 3D‐printed swabs was complete. Qualitative agreement with regard to SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in three pairs of 3D‐printed mid‐nasal and standard swab samples from two inpatients with laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 was also complete. Conclusions Using 3D‐printed swabs to collect nasal samples for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing is feasible, acceptable to patients and health carers, and convenient.

Circulating CD147 is an independent marker of survival in advanced HCC. CD147 requires further evaluation as a potential new prognostic measure in HCC to identify patients with advanced disease who have a poor prognosis.

Objectives: To determine the proportion of hospitalized inpatients suitable for an acute and subacute home-based inpatient bed substitutive service, to examine the ability of treating teams to identify suitable patients for this service, and to examine potential barriers toward inpatients receiving home-based care. Design: Prospective point prevalence study over 2 days in April 2019; analysis of responses to survey questionnaires regarding the suitability for home-based care among inpatients with multiday admissions to acute and subacute wards in the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral center. Setting and Participants: Ward treating teams, clinicians affiliated with the home-based service called RMH@Home, and inpatients who were subsequently identified as being suitable for home-based care. Measurements: Point prevalence and characteristics of inpatients suitable for a home-based bed substitutive service; identified by either treating teams or RMH@Home clinicians; and barriers to the provision of home-based care among ward inpatients. Results: Survey responses were received for 620 of 635 inpatients [median age 69 years (interquartile range 53e81), 53% male], of which 69 (11.1%) were identified as being suitable for home-based inpatient bed substitution care. Treating team clinicians identified 26 patients, clinicians affiliated with RMH@Home identified a further 43 suitable patients. The most commonly reported barrier (38.1%) toward receiving home-based care was functional disability impeding ability to live at home. Conclusions and Implications: A substantial proportion of hospitalized older patients could use home-based inpatient bed substitutive services. Clinicians experienced in home-based care are more skilled than ward-based clinicians in identifying suitable patients for this care model.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Objectives To assess the capacity of the COVID Positive Pathway, a collaborative model of care involving the Victorian public health unit, hospital services, primary care, community organisations, and the North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network, to support people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) isolating at home. Design, setting, participants Cohort study of adults in northwest Melbourne with COVID‐19, 3 August ‒ 31 December 2020. Main outcome measures Demographic and clinical characteristics, and social and welfare needs of people cared for in the Pathway, by care tier level. Results Of 1392 people referred to the Pathway by the public health unit, 858 were eligible for enrolment, and 711 consented to participation; 647 (91%) remained in the Pathway until they had recovered and isolation was no longer required. A total of 575 participants (81%) received care in primary care, mostly from their usual general practitioners; 155 people (22%) received care from hospital outreach services, and 64 (9%) needed high tier care (hospitalisation). Assistance with food and other basic supplies was required by 239 people in the Pathway (34%). Conclusions The COVID Positive Pathway is a feasible multidisciplinary, tiered model of care for people with COVID‐19. About 80% of participants could be adequately supported by primary care and community organisations, allowing hospital services to be reserved for people with more severe illness or with risk factors for disease progression. The principles of this model could be applied to other health conditions if regulatory and funding barriers to information‐sharing and care delivery by health care providers can be overcome.