Decreased community-acquired pneumonia coincided with rising awareness of precautions before governmental containment policy in Japan.

The effectiveness of population-wide compliance to personal precautions (mask-wearing and hand hygiene) in preventing community-acquired pneumonia has been unknown. In Japan, different types of nonpharmaceutical interventions from personal precautions to containment and closure policies (CACPs, e.g. stay-at-home requests) were sequentially introduced from late January to April 2020, allowing for separate analysis of the effects of personal precautions from other more stringent interventions. We quantified the reduction in community-acquired pneumonia hospitalizations and deaths and assessed if it coincided with the timing of increased public awareness of personal precautions before CACPs were implemented. A quasi-experimental interrupted time-series design was applied to non-COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalization and 30-day death data from April 2015 to August 2020 across Japan to identify any trend changes between February and April 2020. We also performed a comparative analysis of pyelonephritis and biliary tract infections to account for possible changes in the baseline medical attendance. These trend changes were then compared with multiple indicators of public awareness and behaviors related to personal precautions, including keyword usage in mass media coverage and sales of masks and hand hygiene products. Hospitalizations and 30-day deaths from non-COVID-19 pneumonia dropped by 24.3% (95% CI 14.8-32.8) and 16.1% (5.5-25.5), respectively, in February 2020, before the implementation of CACPs, whereas pyelonephritis and biliary tract infections did not suggest a detectable change. These changes coincided with increases in indicators related to personal precautions rather than those related to contact behavior changes. Community-acquired pneumonia could be reduced by population-wide compliance to moderate precautionary measures.

Evaluation of a Triage Checklist for Mild COVID-19 Outpatients in Predicting Subsequent Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalization during the Isolation Period: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Managing mild illness in COVID-19 and predicting progression to severe disease are concerning issues. Here, we investigated the outcomes of Japanese patients with mild COVID-19, and identified triage risk factors for further hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits at a single tertiary hospital. A triage checklist with 30 factors was used. Patients recommended for isolation were followed up for 10 days for subsequent ED visits or hospital admission. Overall, 338 patients (median age, 44.0; 45% women) visited the clinic 5.0 days (median) after symptom onset. Thirty-six patients were immediately hospitalized following triage; others were isolated. In total, 72 non-hospitalized patients visited the ED during their isolation, and 30 were hospitalized after evaluation for oxygen desaturation. The median ED visit and hospitalization durations after symptom onset were 5.0 and 8.0 days, respectively. The checklist factors associated with hospitalization during isolation were age > 50 years, body mass index > 25 kg/m2, hypertension, tachycardia with pulse rate > 100/min or blood pressure > 135 mmHg at triage, and >3-day delay in hospital visit after symptom onset. No patients died. Altogether, 80% of patients with mild COVID-19 could be safely isolated at home. Age, BMI, underlying hypertension, date after symptom onset, tachycardia, and systolic blood pressure at triage might be related to later hospitalization.

Discrepancy of SARS-CoV-2 PCR results due to the sample collection sites and possible improper sampling.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary for confirming a diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here we present a COVID-19 case of an elderly woman whose SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests showed false negative repeatedly by evaluating with different sampling sites and procedures. Nasopharyngeal swabs, suctioned sputum, and tongue swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2-PCR. As for tongue swabs, we compared between two different sample conditions; one obtained with dry condition and the other obtained with moistened condition inside the oral cavity. SARS-CoV-2-PCR showed positive for an extended period with suctioned sputum samples compared with nasopharyngeal swabs and tongue swabs. No SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal swab sample obtained on day 46 after symptoms onset was isolated despite high viral load (183740.5 copies/5µL). An adequate production of neutralizing antibody in a serum sample on day 46 was also confirmed. The number of RNA copies of the tongue swab samples was higher with moistened condition than with dry condition. The present case suggests that the difference of sampling site or sample condition can affect PCR results. High loads viral RNA detection does not always correlate with infectivity.

Evaluation of four commercial severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 antibody tests.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests exists commercially; however, their performance using clinical samples is limited. Although insufficient to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the early phase of infection, antibody assays can be of great use for surveillance studies or for some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients presenting late to the hospital. METHODS: This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antibody tests using 213 serum specimens from 90 PCR-positive confirmed COVID-19 patients. Of 59 negative control sera, 50 were obtained from patients with other respiratory infectious diseases before COVID-19 pandemic began while nine were from patients infected with other respiratory viruses, including two seasonal coronaviruses. RESULTS: The varied sensitivities for the four commercial kits were 70.9%, 65.3%, 45.1%, and 65.7% for BioMedomics, Autobio Diagnostics, Genbody, and KURABO, respectively, between sick days 1 and 155 in COVID-19 patients. The sensitivities of the four tests gradually increased over time after infection before sick day 5 (15.0%, 12.5%, 15.0%, and 20.0%); from sick day 11-15 (95.7%, 87.2%, 53.2%, and 89.4%); and after sick day 20 (100%, 100%, 68.6%, and 96.1%), respectively. For severe illness, the sensitivities were quite high in the late phase after sick day 15. The specificities were over 96% for all four tests. No cross-reaction due to other pathogens, including seasonal coronaviruses, was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated the large differences in the antibody test performances. This ought to be considered when performing surveillance analysis.