Background and purpose: Health related quality of life outcomes are increasingly used to measure the effectiveness of stroke interventions. People with severe aphasia after stroke may be unable to self-report on such measures, necessitating the use of proxy respondents. We explored the level of agreement between people with aphasia (PWA) and their proxies on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) and whether this agreement is influenced by demographic variables and proxy levels of depression and carer strain. Methods: People with chronic aphasia (>6 months post stroke) were recruited through the UK national charity for PWA. They were interviewed on the SAQOL-39 and their nominated proxies were interviewed on the SAQOL-39, the General Health Questionnaire and the Caregiver Strain Index. Proxy respondents had to be >18 years of age, see the person with aphasia at least twice a week and have no known severe mental health problems or cognitive decline. Results: 50 of 55 eligible pairs (91%) took part in the study. Proxies rated PWA as more severely affected than PWA rated themselves. The SDs of the difference scores were large and the difference was significant for three of the four SAQOL-39 domains and the overall mean (p(0.01). However, the bias as indicated by effect sizes was small to moderate (0.2-0.5). The strength of the agreement was excellent for the overall SAQOL-39 and the physical domain (intra-class correlation coefficient ICC 0.8), good for the psychosocial and communication domains (0.7) and fair for the energy domain (0.5). Demographic variables and proxy's mood and carer strain did not affect the level of agreement. Conclusions: For group comparisons, proxy respondents who are in frequent contact with people with chronic aphasia can reliably report on their health related quality of life, using the SAQOL-39. Although there are significant differences between PWA and proxy responses, the magnitude of this difference is small to moderate.

No abstract

PCR of upper respiratory specimens is the diagnostic standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. However, saliva sampling is an easy alternative to nasal and throat swabbing. We found similar viral loads in saliva samples and in nasal and throat swab samples from 110 patients with coronavirus disease.

We report dynamics of seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 infections detected by IgG ELISA in 177 individuals diagnosed by RT-PCR. Longitudinal analysis identifies 2-8.5% of individuals who do not seroconvert even weeks after infection. They are younger than seroconverters who have increased co-morbidity and higher inflammatory markers such as C-Reactive Protein. Higher antibody responses are associated with non-white ethnicity. Antibody responses do not decline during follow up almost to 2 months. Serological assays increase understanding of disease severity. Their application in regular surveillance will clarify the duration and protective nature of humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2.

RT-qPCR utilising upper respiratory swabs are the diagnostic gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 despite reported low sensitivity and limited scale up due to global shortages. Saliva is a non-invasive, equipment independent alternative to swabs. We collected 145 paired saliva and nasal/throat (NT) swabs at diagnosis (day 0) and repeated on day 2 and day 7 dependent on inpatient care and day 28 for study follow up. Laboratory cultured virus was used to determine the analytical sensitivity of spiked saliva and swabs containing amies preservation media. Self-collected saliva samples were found to be consistent, and in some cases superior when compared to healthcare worker collected NT swabs from COVID-19 suspected participants. We report for the first time the analytical limit of detection of 10-2 and 100 pfu/ml for saliva and swabs respectively. Saliva is a easily self-collected, highly sensitive specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.