COVID-MATCH65-A prospectively derived clinical decision rule for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

OBJECTIVES: We report on the key clinical predictors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and present a clinical decision rule that can risk stratify patients for COVID-19. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A prospective cohort of patients assessed for COVID-19 at a screening clinic in Melbourne, Australia. The primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test from nasopharyngeal swab. A backwards stepwise logistic regression was used to derive a model of clinical variables predictive of a positive COVID-19 test. Internal validation of the final model was performed using bootstrapped samples and the model scoring derived from the coefficients, with modelling performed for increasing prevalence. RESULTS: Of 4226 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were assessed, 2976 patients underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing (n = 108 SARS-CoV-2 positive) and were used to determine factors associated with a positive COVID-19 test. The 7 features associated with a positive COVID-19 test on multivariable analysis were: COVID-19 patient exposure or international travel, Myalgia/malaise, Anosmia or ageusia, Temperature, Coryza/sore throat, Hypoxia-oxygen saturation < 97%, 65 years or older-summarized in the mnemonic COVID-MATCH65. Internal validation showed an AUC of 0.836. A cut-off of ≥ 1.5 points was associated with a 92.6% sensitivity and 99.5% negative predictive value (NPV) for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: From the largest prospective outpatient cohort of suspected COVID-19 we define the clinical factors predictive of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The subsequent clinical decision rule, COVID-MATCH65, has a high sensitivity and NPV for SARS-CoV-2 and can be employed in the pandemic, adjusted for disease prevalence, to aid COVID-19 risk-assessment and vital testing resource allocation.

Are surgical masks manufactured from sterilisation wrap safe?

BACKGROUND: Due to regional shortages some health services have proposed using surgical masks manufactured from sterilisation wrap. However, there has been little assessment of the safety of this practice. Therefore, we developed our own prototypes and evaluated whether they met regulatory standards. METHODS: Surgical mask prototypes were manufactured from two thickness grades of commercial sterilisation wrap. Safety was assessed in the context of regulatory standards. As it was not previously reported, we developed and performed differential pressure and synthetic blood penetration resistance experiments in accordance with official methodology. RESULTS: Bacterial filtration efficiency was comparable between sterilisation wrap and commercial surgical masks. Both prototypes met regulatory standards for synthetic blood resistance, whilst only our thinner mask fulfilled acceptable differential pressure ('breathability') thresholds. CONCLUSION: Acceptable barrier and breathability properties can be achieved with surgical masks produced from sterilisation wrap. Therefore, this may be a reasonable method to supplement stock if required. Unless there are shortages mandating alternatives, health-care workers should always use approved personal protective equipment.