Expert review of global real-world data on COVID-19 vaccine booster effectiveness and safety during the omicron-dominant phase of the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective in reducing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. However, the emergence of the Omicron variant and subvariants as the globally dominant strains have raised doubts about the effectiveness of currently available vaccines and prompted debate about potential future vaccination strategies. AREAS COVERED: Using the publicly available IVAC VIEW-hub platform, we reviewed 52 studies on vaccine effectiveness (VE) after booster vaccinations. VE were reported for SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection, severe disease and death and stratified by vaccine schedule and age. In addition, a non-systematic literature review of safety was performed to identify single or multi-country studies investigating adverse event rates for at least two of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines. EXPERT OPINION: Booster shots of the current COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high protection against Omicron-related severe disease and death. Additionally, this protection appears to be conserved for at least 3 months, with a small but significant waning after that. The positive risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is well established, giving us confidence to administer additional doses as required. Future vaccination strategies will likely include a combination of schedules based on risk profile, as overly frequent boosting may be neither beneficial nor sustainable for the general population.

Good recovery of immunization stress-related responses presenting as a cluster of stroke-like events following CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 vaccinations.

BACKGROUND: Immunization stress-related responses presenting as stroke-like symptoms could develop following COVID-19 vaccination. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of immunization stress-related responses causing stroke-like events following COVID-19 vaccination in Thailand. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of the secondary data of reported adverse events after COVID-19 immunization that presented with neurologic manifestations. Between March 1 and July 31, 2021, we collected and analyzed the medical records of 221 patients diagnosed with stroke-like symptoms following immunization. Two majority types of vaccines were used at the beginning of the vaccination campaign, including CoronaVac (Sinovac) or ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca). Demographic and medical data included sex, age, vaccine type, sequence dose, time to event, laboratory data, and recovery status as defined by the modified Rankin score. The affected side was evaluated for associations with the injection site. RESULTS: Overall, 221 patients were diagnosed with immunization stress-related responses (stroke-like symptoms) following CoronaVac (Sinovac) or ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) vaccinations. Most patients (83.7%) were women. The median (interquartile range) age of onset was 34 (28-42) years in patients receiving CoronaVac and 46 (33.5-60) years in those receiving ChAdOx1. The median interval between vaccination and symptom onset for each vaccine type was 60 (16-960) min and 30 (8.8-750) min, respectively. Sensory symptoms were the most common symptomology. Most patients (68.9%) developed symptoms on the left side of the body; 99.5% of the patients receiving CoronaVac and 100% of those receiving ChAdOx1 had a good outcome (modified Rankin scores ≤2, indicating slight or no disability). CONCLUSIONS: Immunization stress-related responses presenting as stroke-like symptoms can develop after COVID-19 vaccination. Symptoms more likely to occur on the injection side are transient (i.e., without permanent pathological deficits). Public education and preparedness are important for administering successful COVID-19 vaccination programs.

Clinical Course and Outcomes among COVID-19 Patients at the Hospitel in Bangkok: A Retrospective Study.

A hospitel is a hotel that has been designated as an extension of the healthcare facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in resource-limited settings. However, the clinical course and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to this unique type of facility have never been studied. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of adult patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to a single hospitel in Bangkok, Thailand. Risk factors with respect to chest X-ray progression and clinical progression were analyzed using a logistic regression. A total of 514 patients were recruited, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 35.6 (13.4) years, and 58.6% were women. Patients were admitted after a median (interquartile range) of 3 (2-6) days of illness and were classified with mild (12.3%), moderate (86.6%), and severe (1.1%) conditions. Favipiravir and corticosteroids were prescribed in 26.3% and 14.9% of patients, respectively. Chest X-ray progression was found in 7.6% of patients, and hospital transfer occurred in 2.9%, with no deaths. Favipiravir use (odds ratio (OR) 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-7.5, p = 0.005), nausea/vomiting after admission (OR 32.3, 95% CI 1.5-700.8, p = 0.03), and higher oxygen saturation on admission (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.22-3.23, p = 0.005) were factors associated with chest X-ray progression. Additionally, an oxygen requirement on admission was an independent risk factor for hospital transfer (OR 904, 95% CI 113-7242, p < 0.001). In a setting where the hospitel has been proposed as an extension facility for patients with relatively non-severe COVID-19, most patients could achieve a favorable clinical outcome. However, patients who require oxygen supplementation should be closely monitored for disease progression and promptly transferred to a hospital if necessary.

Humoral Immune Response of the Additional Chadox1 NCOV-19 Vaccine Following a Two-Dose Inactivated Whole-Virus SARS-COV-2 Vaccination in Patients on Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are at risk of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and its associated complications. A previous study demonstrated that patients with ESKD on dialysis generated suboptimal humoral immune response (HIR) and lower seroconversion rate after two-dose inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination as compared to healthy individuals. In this study, we examined HIR of the additional dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine following a standard two-dose inactivated whole-virus SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients on dialysis, and compared to those of healthy controls. METHOD We recruited 59 patients with ESKD [31 patients on haemodialysis (HD) and 28 on peritoneal dialysis (PD)) and 16 healthy controls who received two doses of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (V2) from Ramathibodi hospital and Banphaeo General Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from July 2021 to September 2021. All participants were administered a third dose of the ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccine (V3) with a 6-week interval between the V2 to V3. HIR was measured 2 weeks after V2 and V3 using SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assay, which detects antibodies against the S1 receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Median anti-RBD IgG titer and seroconversion rate, defined as anti-RBD IgG titre ≥ 7.1 BAU/mL, were compared among ESKD patients and to those of healthy controls using the Kruskal–Wallis H test and the chi-squared test, respectively. RESULTS Baseline characteristics of patients on HD, PD and healthy controls are shown in Table 1. Demographic characteristics and baseline laboratory parameters were comparable between the HD and PD groups, except for a lower mean serum albumin level in the PD group (P < .001). None of the healthy controls were immunocompromised or receiving immunosuppressive therapies.Table 1.Clinical characteristics, n (%) HD (n = 31)PD (n = 28)Controls (n = 16)Age, years45 (10)41 (12)41 (9)Male, n (%) 23 (74)17 (61)5 (31)Body mass index, kg/m226 (5)24 (4)27 (6)Charlson Comorbidity Index, median (IQR) 3 (3–5)2.5 (2–4)0Comorbidities, n (%)  Diabetes mellitus HypertensionCardiovascular disease 14 (45)24 (77)7 (23)7 (25)25 (89)2 (7)1 (6)2 (13)0 Causes of ESKD, n (%) Diabetic nephropathy Hypertensive nephropathy Others Unknown6 (19)3 (10)5 (16)14 (45)5 (18)8 (29)8 (29)7 (25)NADialysis vintage, months, median (IQR)33 (17–84)34 (7–57)NATotal Kt/Vurea1.6 (0.3)2.0 (0.4)NALaboratories White blood cells, × 109/L Absolute lymphocyte count, × 109/L Haemoglobin, g/dL Ferritin, ng/mL, median (IQR) Albumin, g/L6.9 (1.9)1.6 (0.5)11 (2)301 (119–441)40 (4)7.3 (2.8)1.5 (0.8)10 (2)367 (156–751)33 (4)*7.7 (2.4)2.2 (0.9)NANANA *P < .05. At 2 weeks after V3, the median anti-RBD IgG titres were significantly increased in all groups compared to those levels after V2 (85[33–412] versus 1566 [861–3083] BAU/mL for patients on HD, 81 [15–144] versus 913 [293–1359] BAU/mL for patients on PD and 250 [92–603] versus 2210 [1531–2782] BAU/mL for healthy controls;P < .001 for all groups). Comparing antibody levels between groups after V3, patients on PD generated significantly lower anti-RBD IgG titer than patients on HD (P = .02) and healthy controls (P < .01) (Figure 1A). The seroconversion rate of the HD and PD groups improved from 94% and 82% after V2 to 100% after V3 in both groups (P = .16 and P = .03, respectively) (Figure 1B). All patients on dialysis who had anti-RBD IgG < 7.1 BAU/mL after V2 (7/59 patients) seroconverted after the additional dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION We suggest that an additional ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine after a primary two doses inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could improve seroconversion rate and magnitude of humoral immune response in patients on dialysis. The durability of the immune response to this vaccination regimen requires further study.

An additional dose of viral vector COVID-19 vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients: A randomized controlled trial (CVIM 4 study).

Immunogenicity following an additional dose of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine was investigated in an extended primary series among kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Eighty-five KT participants were randomized to receive either an mRNA (M group; n = 43) or viral vector (V group; n = 42) vaccine. Among them, 62% were male, with a median (IQR) age of 50 (43-59) years and post-transplantation duration of 46 (26-82) months. At 2 weeks post-additional dose, there was no difference in the seroconversion rate between the M and V groups (70% vs. 65%, p = .63). A median (IQR) of anti-RBD antibody level was not statistically different between the M group compared with the V group (51.8 [5.1-591] vs. 28.5 [2.9-119.3] BAU/ml, p = .18). Furthermore, the percentage of participants with positive SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test results was not statistically different between groups (20% vs. 15%, p = .40). S1-specific T cell and RBD-specific B cell responses were also comparable between the M and V groups (230 [41-420] vs. 268 [118-510], p = .65 and 2 [0-10] vs. 2 [0-13] spot-forming units/106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells, p = .60). In conclusion, compared with an additional dose of viral vector COVID-19 vaccine, a dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine did not elicit significantly different responses in KT recipients, regarding either humoral or cell-mediated immunity. (TCTR20211102003).

Durability of Humoral and Cellular Immunity after an Extended Primary Series with Heterologous Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Prime-Boost and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Dialysis Patients (ICON3).

The durability of a three-dose extended primary series of COVID-9 vaccine in dialysis patients remains unknown. Here, we assessed dynamic changes in SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immunity at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after the extended primary series in 29 hemodialyzed (HD), 28 peritoneal dialyzed (PD) patients, and 14 healthy controls. Participants received two doses of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine followed by a dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. At 6 months, median anti-RBD IgG titers (IQR) significantly declined from baseline in the HD (1741 (1136-3083) BAU/mL vs. 373 (188-607) BAU/mL) and PD (1093 (617-1911) BAU/mL vs. 180 (126-320) BAU/mL) groups, as did the mean percent inhibition of neutralizing antibodies (HD: 96% vs. 81%; PD: 95% vs. 73%) (all p < 0.01). Age and post-vaccination serological response intensity were predictors of early humoral seroprotection loss. In contrast, cell-mediated immunity remained unchanged. In conclusion, humoral immunity declined substantially in dialysis patients, while cell-mediated immunity remained stable 6 months after the extended heterologous primary series of two inactivated SARS-CoV-2/ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. A booster dose could be considered in dialysis patients 3 months after this unique regimen, particularly in the elderly or those with a modest initial humoral response.

Expert review on global real-world vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective in reducing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. While primary series vaccination rates are generally high in Southeast Asian (SEA) countries, various factors have limited the rollout and impact of booster doses. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed 79 studies in the International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC) VIEW-hub platform on vaccine effectiveness (VE) after primary immunizations with two-dose schedules. VE data were reported for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths, and stratified across variants of concern, age, study design and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and combinations of both), vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, AZD1222 [ChAdOx1 nCoV-19] 'Vaxzevria'), and inactivated virus vaccines (CoronaVac). EXPERT OPINION: The most-studied COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high (>90%) protection against serious clinical outcomes like hospitalizations and deaths, regardless of variant. Additionally, this protection appears equivalent for mRNA vaccines and vector vaccines like AZD1222, as supported by our analysis of Asian and relevant international data, and by insights from SEA experts. Given the continued impact of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths on health-care systems worldwide, encouraging vaccination strategies that reduce this burden is more relevant than attempting to prevent broader but milder infections with specific variants, including Omicron.

Use of Favipiravir for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the Setting of Hospitel

Objective In a setting with a limited capacity for hospitalization, “hospitels” have been developed by using hotels as extension healthcare facilities for patients with mild illness. This study examined the clinical evidence of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were treated with favipiravir, the main medication for treating COVID-19, in the hospitel setting in Thailand. Methods We retrospectively collected demographic and clinical information, medication treatment, and outcome data for all patients who received favipiravir for COVID-19 during admission to a hospitel from April 27, 2021, to July 2, 2021. Risk factors for adults who could not complete treatment in a hospitel and who required hospitel transfer were analyzed. Results In total, 421 patients were included in the study. Most patients (94.5%) received favipiravir to treat COVID-19 pneumonia. Adjunctive corticosteroids were prescribed to 42.3% of patients. Concerning the treatment outcome, 83.6% of patients completed treatment at a hospitel, and only two deaths occurred. No serious adverse drug reactions were observed. On multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.06;95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02–1.10, P=0.002), dyspnea (OR = 2.84;95% CI = 1.25–6.44, P=0.013), loss of taste (OR = 107.63;95% CI = 1.24–9337.39, P=0.040), corticosteroid use (OR = 12.56;95% CI = 3.65–43.18, P < 0.001), and an extended duration of favipiravir use (OR = 16.91;95% CI = 7.29–39.24, P < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of hospitel transfer. Conclusions Low rates of hospitel transfer and mortality were observed in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients treated with favipiravir at hospitel. Caution might be required in elderly patients, patients with dyspnea or a loss of taste, and patients receiving a 10-day course of favipiravir or adjunctive corticosteroids because these patients might require further management in the hospitel.

Use of Favipiravir for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the Setting of Hospitel.

Objective: In a setting with a limited capacity for hospitalization, "hospitels" have been developed by using hotels as extension healthcare facilities for patients with mild illness. This study examined the clinical evidence of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were treated with favipiravir, the main medication for treating COVID-19, in the hospitel setting in Thailand. Methods: We retrospectively collected demographic and clinical information, medication treatment, and outcome data for all patients who received favipiravir for COVID-19 during admission to a hospitel from April 27, 2021, to July 2, 2021. Risk factors for adults who could not complete treatment in a hospitel and who required hospitel transfer were analyzed. Results: In total, 421 patients were included in the study. Most patients (94.5%) received favipiravir to treat COVID-19 pneumonia. Adjunctive corticosteroids were prescribed to 42.3% of patients. Concerning the treatment outcome, 83.6% of patients completed treatment at a hospitel, and only two deaths occurred. No serious adverse drug reactions were observed. On multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-1.10, P=0.002), dyspnea (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 1.25-6.44, P=0.013), loss of taste (OR = 107.63; 95% CI = 1.24-9337.39, P=0.040), corticosteroid use (OR = 12.56; 95% CI = 3.65-43.18, P < 0.001), and an extended duration of favipiravir use (OR = 16.91; 95% CI = 7.29-39.24, P < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of hospitel transfer. Conclusions: Low rates of hospitel transfer and mortality were observed in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients treated with favipiravir at hospitel. Caution might be required in elderly patients, patients with dyspnea or a loss of taste, and patients receiving a 10-day course of favipiravir or adjunctive corticosteroids because these patients might require further management in the hospitel.

Immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine after a two-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients.

Vaccination with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus produces suboptimal immune responses among kidney transplant (KT), peritoneal dialyzed (PD), and hemodialyzed (HD) patients. Participants were vaccinated with two-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (V2) and a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (V3) at 1-2 months after V2. We enrolled 106 participants: 31 KT, 28 PD, and 31 HD patients and 16 controls. Among KT, PD, and HD groups, median (IQR) of anti-receptor binding domain antibody levels were 1.0 (0.4-26.8), 1092.5 (606.9-1927.2), and 1740.9 (1106-3762.3) BAU/mL, and percent neutralization was 0.9 (0-9.9), 98.8 (95.9-99.5), and 99.4 (98.8-99.7), respectively, at two weeks after V3. Both parameters were significantly increased from V2 across all groups (p < 0.05). Seroconversion and neutralization positivity rates in PD, HD, and control groups were 100% but were impaired in KT patients (39% and 16%, respectively). S1-specific T-cell counts were increased in PD and HD groups (p < 0.05) but not in KT patients. The positive S1-specific T-cell responder rate was > 90% in PD, HD, and control groups, which was higher than that in KT recipients (74%, p < 0.05). The heterologous inactivated virus/ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination strategy elicited greater immunogenicity among dialysis patients; however, inadequate responses remained among KT recipients (TCTR20210226002).

SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after immunization with inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients (CVIM 1 study).

Immunogenicity following inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among solid organ transplant recipients has not been assessed. Seventy-five patients (37 kidney transplant [KT] recipients and 38 healthy controls) received two doses, at 4-week intervals, of an inactivated whole-virus SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral (HMI) and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) were measured before, 4 weeks post-first dose, and 2 weeks post-second dose. The median (IQR) age of KT recipients was 50 (42-54) years and 89% were receiving calcineurin inhibitors/mycophenolate/corticosteroid regimens. The median (IQR) time since transplant was 4.5 (2-9.5) years. Among 35 KT patients, the median (IQR) of anti-RBD IgG level measured by CLIA after vaccination was not different from baseline, but was significantly lower than in controls (2.4 [1.1-3.7] vs. 1742.0 [747.7-3783.0] AU/ml, p < .01) as well as percentages of neutralizing antibody inhibition measured by surrogate viral neutralization test (0 [0-0] vs. 71.2 [56.8-92.2]%, p < .01). However, the median (IQR) of SARS-CoV-2 mixed peptides-specific T cell responses measured by ELISpot was significantly increased compared with baseline (30 [4-120] vs. 12 [0-56] T cells/106  PBMCs, p = .02) and not different from the controls. Our findings revealed weak HMI but comparable CMI responses in fully vaccinated KT recipients receiving inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared to immunocompetent individuals (Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20210226002).

Short-Term Immunogenicity Profiles and Predictors for Suboptimal Immune Responses in Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease Immunized with Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are at risk of severe coronavirus disease and mortality. Immunogenicity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) inactivated whole-virus vaccine in patients with ESKD has never been explored. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 60 patients with ESKD and 30 healthy controls. All participants received two doses of an inactivated whole-virus SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac Biotech Ltd) 4 weeks apart. SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses were investigated and referenced with healthy controls. RESULTS: After two doses, an anti-receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G of 50 AU/ml or greater was present in 53 of 60 patients (88%) in the ESKD group and all participants (100%) in the control group (P = 0.05). The percentage of patients with ESKD and controls with neutralizing antibodies of 35% threshold or greater was 58% and 88%, respectively (P = 0.01). Furthermore, the proportion of patients with ESKD and S1-specific T cell response was comparable with controls (82% vs. 77%, P = 0.45). Old age, high ferritin level, and low absolute lymphocyte count were independently associated with poor humoral immune responses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ESKD could develop similar SARS-CoV-2-specific cell-mediated immune responses compared to healthy controls, although suboptimal humoral immune responses were observed following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Therefore, patients with ESKD and the abovementioned factors are at risk of generating inadequate humoral immune responses, and a vaccine strategy to elicit greater immunogenicity among these relatively immunocompromised patients is warranted. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20210226002).

Clinical manifestations of influenza and performance of rapid influenza diagnostic test: A university hospital setting

<h4>Background</h4> Rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT) is a diagnostic tool that detects the influenza virus nucleoprotein antigen. The RIDT is widely used in clinical practice because it is simple and cost‐effective, and provides results within 10‐15 minutes. <h4>Objective</h4> We aimed at evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the Sofia® RIDT compared with the Luminex® multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The other goal was to determine the predicting factors for diagnosing influenza among individuals with influenza‐like illness (ILI). <h4>Method</h4> Patients with ILI who had the results of both tests were retrospectively reviewed. We determined the performances of the RIDT. <h4>Results</h4> A total of 473 patients were included with a median age of 58 (interquartile range 41‐74) years. Of these, 47.1% were male, and 16.2% were diagnosed with influenza by the RIDT or RT‐PCR's positive test. For influenza A, the RIDT showed a sensitivity of 76.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 59.8‐88.6) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.1‐99.0), whereas for influenza B, it showed a sensitivity of 47.1% (95% CI 23.0‐72.2) and a specificity of 97.1% (95% CI 95.2‐98.5). Patients with influenza were more likely to present with fever (81.8% vs 63.1%), cough (81.8% vs 66.1%), and rhinorrhea (41.6% vs 26.5%) compared to those without influenza (P < 0.05, all), and had a higher proportion of pneumonia (19.5% vs 10.6%, P = 0.029) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (5.2% vs 1.5%, P = 0.063). The predicting factors for influenza among patients presented with ILI were cough (odds ratio [OR] 2.77;95% CI 0.21‐0.81, P = 0.010), rhinorrhea (OR 1.87;95% CI 1.03‐3.36, P = 0.037), and higher body temperature (OR 1.64;95% CI 1.23‐2.19, P = 0.001). <h4>Conclusions</h4> The sensitivity of the RIDT for the diagnosis of influenza is fair in contrast to the specificity. Among patients with ILI, cough, rhinorrhea, and higher body temperature might be factors for predicting influenza.

Saliva sample pooling for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

As the battle against coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues, an increase in workload and medical expenses have been a concern to the health care system worldwide. Developing a measure that helps to conserve the health care resource is, therefore, highly desirable, and the pooling of the specimens for testing is one of the attractive strategies. Recently, we showed that saliva could be a potential alternative specimen for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In the present study, we performed the pooling of saliva specimens for testing by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. We showed that the saliva pool of either 5 or 10 samples, by allowing the detection of either gene in the pool at an increased cycle threshold cutoff value, further performing individual sample testing in the positive pools did not compromise the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients under investigation in Thailand.

To manage coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a national health authority has implemented a case definition of patients under investigation (PUIs) to guide clinicians' diagnoses. We aimed to determine characteristics among all PUIs and those with and without COVID-19. We retrospectively reviewed clinical characteristics and risk factors for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among PUIs at a tertiary care center in Bangkok, Thailand, between March 23 and April 7, 2020. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was performed. There were 405 evaluable PUIs; 157 (38.8%) were men, with a mean age ± SD of 36.2 ± 12.6 years. The majority (68.9%) reported no comorbidities. There were 53 (13.1%) confirmed COVID-19 cases. The most common symptoms among those were cough (73.6%), fever (58.5%), sore throat (39.6%), and muscle pain (37.4%). Among these patients, diagnoses were upper respiratory tract infection (69.8%), viral syndrome (15.1%), pneumonia (11.3%), and asymptomatic infection (3.8%). Multivariate analysis identified close contact with an index case (OR, 3.49; 95%CI, 1.49-8.15; P = 0.004), visiting high-risk places (OR, 1.92; 95%CI, 1.03-3.56; P = 0.039), productive cough (OR, 2.03; 95%CI, 1.05-3.92; P = 0.034), and no medical coverage (OR, 3.91; 95%CI, 1.35-11.32; P = 0.012) as independent risk factors for COVID-19 among the PUIs. The majority had favorable outcomes, though one (1.9%) died from severe pneumonia. COVID-19 was identified in 13% of PUIs defined per a national health authority's case definition. History of contact with a COVID-19 patient, visiting a high-risk place, having no medical coverage, and productive cough may identify individuals at risk of COVID-19 in Thailand.