Molecular detection of SARS-COV-2 in exhaled breath at the point-of-need.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the need for improved technologies to help control the spread of contagious pathogens. While rapid point-of-need testing plays a key role in strategies to rapidly identify and isolate infectious patients, current test approaches have significant shortcomings related to assay limitations and sample type. Direct quantification of viral shedding in exhaled particles may offer a better rapid testing approach, since SARS-CoV-2 is believed to spread mainly by aerosols. It assesses contagiousness directly, the sample is easy and comfortable to obtain, sampling can be standardized, and the limited sample volume lends itself to a fast and sensitive analysis. In view of these benefits, we developed and tested an approach where exhaled particles are efficiently sampled using inertial impaction in a micromachined silicon chip, followed by an RT-qPCR molecular assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 shedding. Our portable, silicon impactor allowed for the efficient capture (>85%) of respiratory particles down to 300 nm without the need for additional equipment. We demonstrate using both conventional off-chip and in-situ PCR directly on the silicon chip that sampling subjects' breath in less than a minute yields sufficient viral RNA to detect infections as early as standard sampling methods. A longitudinal study revealed clear differences in the temporal dynamics of viral load for nasopharyngeal swab, saliva, breath, and antigen tests. Overall, after an infection, the breath-based test remains positive during the first week but is the first to consistently report a negative result, putatively signalling the end of contagiousness and further emphasizing the potential of this tool to help manage the spread of airborne respiratory infections.

Tackle and ball carrier demands of rugby league: a seven-year league-wide study including over 1,000,000 tackle events.

OBJECTIVES: Describe the highest frequency and variability for tackle events in rugby league. Investigate seasonal differences in total tackle events per match over a seven-year period. DESIGN: Retrospective observational. METHODS: Tackle events (i.e., ball carrier events [attacker] and tackler involvements [defender]) from 864 male professional rugby league players competing in 1176 Super League matches from 2014 to 2020 were included. A series of linear mixed effect models were used to determine the frequency and variability during peak 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, 20-, 40-min and whole-match tackle events per player per match at a positional group level. Differences between seasons for the total number of tackle events per match were compared using a one-way analysis of variance and with Tukey's honestly significant difference test. RESULTS: Tackle events were greatest for Props (51.5 [47.7-55.4] per match). Within-players, between-matches, and between-seasons variability was <10 % for tackle events. There were significantly less tackle events and tackler involvements per match in 2014 and a significantly more tackle events per match in season 2020b when compared with all other seasons. CONCLUSIONS: Large between-position variability in peak tackle events, ball carrier events, and tackler involvements would suggest that coaches should separate players into positional groups and prescribe training accordingly. Total number of tackle events, ball carrier events, and tackler involvements were significantly greater in season 2020b when compared to season 2014 to 2019 (inclusive) which may be a consequence of rule changes introduced to the sport.

Longitudinal changes in Super League match locomotor and event characteristics: A league-wide investigation over three seasons in rugby league.

The 2019 and 2020 Super League (SL) seasons included several competition rule changes. This study aimed to quantify the difference between the 2018, 2019 and 2020 SL seasons for duration, locomotor and event characteristics of matches. Microtechnology and match event data were analysed from 11 SL teams, comprising 124 players, from 416 competitive matches across a three-year data collection period. Due to an enforced suspension of league competition as a consequence of COVID-19 restrictions, and subsequent rule changes upon return to play, season 2020 was divided into season 2020a (i.e. Pre-COVID suspension) and season 2020b (i.e. Post-COVID suspension). Duration, locomotor variables, and match events were analysed per whole-match and ball-in-play (BIP) periods with differences between seasons determined using mixed-effects models. There were significant (ρ ≤ 0.05) reductions in whole-match and BIP durations for adjustables and backs in 2019 when compared to 2018; albeit the magnitude of reduction was less during BIP analyses. Despite reduced duration, adjustables reported an increased average speed suggesting reduced recovery time between bouts. Both forwards and adjustables also experienced an increase in missed tackles between 2018 and 2019 seasons. When comparing 2019 to 2020a, adjustables and backs increased their average speed and distance whilst all positional groups increased average acceleration both for whole-match and BIP analyses. When comparing 2020a to 2020b, all positional groups experienced reduced average speed and average acceleration for both whole-match and BIP analyses. Forwards experienced an increased number of tackles and carries, adjustables experienced an increased number of carries, and backs experienced an increased number of missed tackles when comparing these variables between season 2020a and 2020b. Rule changes have a greater effect on whole-match duration and locomotor characteristics than those reported during BIP periods which suggests the implemented rule changes have removed stagnant time from matches. Amendments to tackle related rules within matches (e.g., introduction of the 'six-again' rule) increases the number of collision related events such as carries and tackles.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission during rugby league matches: do players become infected after participating with SARS-CoV-2 positive players?

OBJECTIVES: To examine the interactions between SARS-CoV-2 positive players and other players during rugby league matches and determine within-match SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk. METHODS: Four Super League matches in which SARS-CoV-2 positive players were subsequently found to have participated were analysed. Players were identified as increased-risk contacts, and player interactions and proximities were analysed by video footage and global positioning system (GPS) data. The primary outcome was new positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of the match in increased-risk contacts and other players participating in the matches. RESULTS: Out of 136 total players, there were 8 SARS-CoV-2 positive players, 28 players identified as increased-risk contacts and 100 other players in the matches. Increased-risk contacts and other players were involved in 11.4±9.0 (maximum 32) and 4.0±5.2 (maximum 23) tackles, respectively. From GPS data, increased-risk contacts and other players were within 2 m of SARS-CoV-2 positive players on 10.4±18.0 (maximum 88) and 12.5±20.7 (maximum 121) occasions, totalling 65.7±137.7 (maximum 689) and 89.5±169.4 (maximum 1003) s, respectively. Within 14 days of the match, one increased-risk contact and five players returned positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) tests, and 27 increased-risk contacts and 95 other participants returned negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests. Positive cases were most likely traced to social interactions, car sharing and wider community transmission and not linked to in-match transmission. CONCLUSION: Despite tackle involvements and close proximity interactions with SARS-CoV-2 positive players, in-match SARS-CoV-2 transmission was not confirmed. While larger datasets are needed, these findings suggest rugby presents a lower risk of viral transmission than previously predicted.

Telemedicine in Community Cancer Care: How Technology Helps Patients With Cancer Navigate a Pandemic.

COVID-19 places unprecedented demands on the oncology ecosystem. The extensive pressure of managing health care during the pandemic establishes the need for rapid implementation of telemedicine. Across our large statewide practice of 640 practitioners at 221 sites of service, an aggressive multidisciplinary telemedicine strategy was implemented in March by coordinating and training many different parts of our healthcare delivery system. From March to September, telemedicine grew to serve 15%-20% of new patients and 20%-25% of established patients, permitting the practice to implement safety protocols and reduce volumes in clinic while continuing to manage the acute and chronic care needs of our patient population. We surveyed practice leaders, queried for qualitative feedback, and established 76% were satisfied with the platform. The common challenges for patients were the first-time use and technology function, and patients were, in general, grateful and happy to have the option to visit their clinicians on a telemedicine platform. In addition to conducting new and established visits remotely, telemedicine allows risk assessments, avoidance of hospitalization, family education, psychosocial care, and improved pharmacy support. The implementation has limitations including technical complexity; increased burden on patients and staff; and broadband access, particularly in rural communities. For telemedicine to improve as a solution to enhance the longitudinal care of patients with cancer, payment coverage policies need to continue after the pandemic, technologic adoption needs to be easy for patients, and broadband access in rural areas needs to be a policy priority. Further research to optimize the patient and clinician experience is required to continue to make progress.

Uncertainty from COVID-19 delays progress on the road to value-based cancer care.

COVID-19 has created a significant distraction from normal practice operations. The uncertainty that comes along with the pandemic is a huge worry, and can distract from practice transformation.

Eating meat and not vaccinating: In defense of the analogy.

The devastating impact of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic is prompting renewed scrutiny of practices that heighten the risk of infectious disease. One such practice is refusing available vaccines known to be effective at preventing dangerous communicable diseases. For reasons of preventing individual harm, avoiding complicity in collective harm, and fairness, there is a growing consensus among ethicists that individuals have a duty to get vaccinated. I argue that these same grounds establish an analogous duty to avoid buying and eating most meat sold today, based solely on a concern for human welfare. Meat consumption is a leading driver of infectious disease. Wildlife sales at wet markets, bushmeat hunting, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are all exceptionally risky activities that facilitate disease spread and impose immense harms on human populations. If there is a moral duty to vaccinate, we also should recognize a moral duty to avoid most meat. The paper concludes by considering the implications of this duty for policy.

Returning to Play after Prolonged Training Restrictions in Professional Collision Sports.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 has resulted in widespread training disruption in many sports. Some athletes have access to facilities and equipment, while others have limited or no access, severely limiting their training practices. A primary concern is that the maintenance of key physical qualities (e. g. strength, power, high-speed running ability, acceleration, deceleration and change of direction), game-specific contact skills (e. g. tackling) and decision-making ability, are challenged, impacting performance and injury risk on resumption of training and competition. In extended periods of reduced training, without targeted intervention, changes in body composition and function can be profound. However, there are strategies that can dramatically mitigate potential losses, including resistance training to failure with lighter loads, plyometric training, exposure to high-speed running to ensure appropriate hamstring conditioning, and nutritional intervention. Athletes may require psychological support given the challenges associated with isolation and a change in regular training routine. While training restrictions may result in a decrease in some physical and psychological qualities, athletes can return in a positive state following an enforced period of rest and recovery. On return to training, the focus should be on progression of all aspects of training, taking into account the status of individual athletes.