Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 19 de 19
Filter
1.
Clin Lab ; 69(3)2023 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2275671

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess clinical performance of a rapid antigen test (RAT) for screening asymptomatic patients during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron outbreak. METHODS: RAT with the routine real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) using the same nasopharyngeal swab in universal transport medium was performed for rapid screening of asymptomatic caregivers of emergent patients from March to April 2022 in a tertiary-care hospital in Korea. Clinical performance of RAT compared to that analyzed by rRT-PCR was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 900 caregivers were enrolled in this study, of which 14 (1.6%) were RAT-positive and 44 (5.0%) were positive for rRT-PCR. Overall sensitivity and specificity of RAT were 31.8% and 100.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Caution must be taken when using RAT as a screening test for asymptomatic caregivers as this may lead to outbreaks among high-risk patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Caregivers , COVID-19 Testing , Immunologic Tests , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 105(4): 115891, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2165214

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS­CoV­2 & Influenza A/B assay (LiatCOVID/flu) for the detection of both severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron outbreak. METHODS: Residual nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPS) previously tested with cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B for SARS-CoV-2 and with the Allplex Respiratory Panel 1 for influenza viruses were collected. All samples were submitted to the LiatCOVID/flu assay. RESULTS: A total of 1147 samples were collected comprising 167 SARS-CoV-2-positive, 556 SARS-CoV-2-negative, 224 influenza-positive, and 200 influenza-negative cases. The positive percent agreement (PPA)/negative percent agreement (NPA) of LiatCOVID/flu for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses compared to the previously tested methods were 100% of 100% and 99.6% of 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LiatCOVID/flu assay shows an acceptable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using NPS samples.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza A virus , Influenza, Human , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza B virus/genetics , Nasopharynx , COVID-19/diagnosis , Influenza A virus/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
4.
Clin Lab ; 68(10)2022 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2080870

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively examined all initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test results using three real-time PCR tests from patients without a history of COVID-19 collected from September to October 2021 at a university-affiliated hospital. METHODS: We defined a possible false-positive (PFP) case as a positive case that showed negative results upon per-forming a confirmatory test on the same specimen. Positivity% and PFP% were defined as the number of first positive and the number of PFP cases divided by the total test numbers, respectively. RESULTS: The positivity%/PFP% values were 0.76%/0.10%, 0.29%/0.02%, and 0.21%/0.03% for the Xpert, Allplex, and cobas tests, respectively. Six (75%) cobas PFP cases were RdRp-only positive. All PFP cases analyzed by Xpert except one had cycle threshold values ≥ 40. Contamination during extraction was suspected in five of the 10 PFP cases analyzed by Allplex, which requires a separate extraction step. CONCLUSIONS: Care must be taken when analyzing first-positive cases as these may be false-positive signals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(1)2022 Jan 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613767

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to identify the mediating effects of perceived health status (PHS) and perceived organizational support (POS) in the association between emotional labor and burnout in public health nurses (PHNs). The participants were 207 PHNs convenience sampled from 30 public health centers and offices in Jeju, Korea. Data regarding emotional labor, PHS, POS, and burnout were collected between February and March 2021 using a structured questionnaire. Collected data were analyzed by Pearson's correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis. Burnout of PHNs was positively correlated with emotional labor (r = 0.64, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with PHS (r = -0.51, p < 0.001) and POS (r = -0.51, p < 0.001). In the association between emotional labor and burnout, PHS (B = -1.36, p < 0.001) and POS (B = -0.42, p = 0.001) had a partial mediating effect. Reduction of burnout among PHNs requires not only effective management of emotional labor but also personal and organizational efforts to improve PHS and POS.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Nurses, Public Health , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological , Health Status , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(33): e233, 2021 Aug 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1370979

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission among non-close contacts is not infrequent. We evaluated the proportion and circumstances of individuals to whom SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted without close contact with the index patient in a nosocomial outbreak in a tertiary care hospital in Korea. From March 2020 to March 2021, there were 36 secondary cases from 14 SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. Of the 36 secondary cases, 26 (72%) had been classified as close contact and the remaining 10 (28%) were classified as non-close contact. Of the 10 non-close contact, 4 had short conversations with both individuals masked, 4 shared a space without any conversation with both masked, and the remaining 2 entered the space after the index had left. At least one quarter of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions occurred among non-close contacts. The definition of close contact for SARS-CoV-2 exposure based on the mode of droplet transmission should be revised to reflect the airborne nature of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Contact Tracing , Humans , Republic of Korea/epidemiology
9.
Viruses ; 13(5)2021 04 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217119

ABSTRACT

It is unclear whether universal PCR screening for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals prior to admission is useful. From April to December 2020, the positive rate of universal pre-admission screening was 0.005% (4/76,521) in a tertiary care hospital in Korea. The positive rates were not different between the periods (period 1 (daily new patients of <1 per million inhabitants) vs. period 2 (1-8.3 per million inhabitants) vs. period 3 (10.3 to 20 per million inhabitants); P = 0.45). Universal pre-admission screening for SARS-CoV-2 had a lower positive rate than that of symptom-based screening (0.005% vs. 0.049% (53/109,257), p < 0.001). In addition, seven patients with negative pre-admission test results had subsequent positive PCR during hospitalization, and four patients had secondary transmission. Universal pre-admission PCR screening may not be practical in settings of low prevalence of COVID-19, and negative PCR results at admission should not serve as a basis for underestimating the risk of nosocomial spread from asymptomatic patients.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Diseases/epidemiology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 , Carrier State , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Carrier State/diagnosis , Carrier State/epidemiology , Humans , Prevalence , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Tertiary Care Centers
10.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(4): e38, 2021 Jan 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1048951

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks emerged at two university-affiliated hospitals in Seoul (hospital A) and Uijeongbu City (hospital S) in the metropolitan Seoul area in March 2020. The aim of this study was to investigate epidemiological links between the outbreaks using whole genome sequencing (WGS) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: Fifteen patients were enrolled in the study, including four non-outbreak (A1-A4) and three outbreak cases (A5-A7) in hospital A and eight cases (S1-S8) in hospital S. Patients' hospital stays, COVID-19 symptoms, and transfer history were reviewed. RNA samples were submitted for WGS and genome-wide single nucleotide variants and phylogenetic relationships were analyzed. RESULTS: The index patient (A5) in hospital A was transferred from hospital S on 26 March. Patients A6 and A7 were the family caregiver and sister, respectively, of the patient who shared a room with A5 for 4 days. Prior to transfer, A5 was at the next bed to S8 in the emergency room on 25 March. Patient S6, a professional caregiver, took care of the patient in the room next to S8's room for 5 days until 22 March and then S5 for another 3 days. WGS revealed that SARS-CoV-2 in A2, A3, and A4 belong to clades V/B.2, S/A, and G/B.1, respectively, whereas that of A5-A7 and S1-S5 are of the V/B.2.1 clade and closely clustered. In particular, SARS-CoV-2 in patients A5 and S5 showed perfect identity. CONCLUSION: WGS is a useful tool to understand epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. It is the first study to elucidate the role of patient transfer and caregivers as links of nosocomial outbreaks of COVID-19 in multiple hospitals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Hospitals, University , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Contact Tracing , Cross Infection/virology , DNA, Viral/genetics , Electronic Health Records , Female , Genome, Viral , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide , Seoul/epidemiology , Whole Genome Sequencing , Young Adult
11.
Heart ; 107(5): 373-380, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-991851

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies that evaluated cardiovascular risk factors considered age as a potential confounder. We aimed to investigate the impact of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors on fatal outcomes according to age in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed on data collected from PubMed and Embase databases up to 11 June 2020. All observational studies (case series or cohort studies) that assessed in-hospital patients were included, except those involving the paediatric population. Prevalence rates of comorbid diseases and clinical outcomes were stratified by mean patient age in each study (ranges: <50 years, 50-60 years and ≥60 years). The primary outcome measure was a composite fatal outcome of severe COVID-19 or death. RESULTS: We included 51 studies with a total of 48 317 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Overall, the relative risk of developing severe COVID-19 or death was significantly higher in patients with risk factors for CVD (hypertension: OR 2.50, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.90; diabetes: 2.25, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.69) and CVD (3.11, 95% 2.55 to 3.79). Younger patients had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes and CVD compared with older patients; however, the relative risk of fatal outcomes was higher among the former. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis suggest that CVD and its risk factors (hypertension and diabetes) were closely related to fatal outcomes in COVID-19 for patients across all ages. Although young patients had lower prevalence rates of cardiovascular comorbidities than elderly patients, relative risk of fatal outcome in young patients with hypertension, diabetes and CVD was higher than in elderly patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198152.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Mortality , Humans
13.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 521, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-742736

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is the most effective testing system currently available to counter COVID-19 epidemics when potent treatments and vaccines are unavailable. Therefore, four SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR kits have been approved by the emergency-use-authorization (EUA) without clinical validation in Korea until March 15, 2020. This study evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of these kits. Allplex 2019-nCoV Real-time PCR (Seegene, Seoul, Korea), PowerChek 2019-nCoV (KogeneBiotech, Seoul), Real-Q 2019-nCoV Real-Time Detection (BioSewoom, Seoul), and StandardM nCoV Detection (SD BIOSENSOR, Osong, Korea) were evaluated. The limit of detection (LODs) of Allplex, PowerChek, and Real-Q was determined by testing the transcribed RNA of SARS-CoV-2 E and the RNA of SARS-CoV Frankfurt1. A total of 27 consecutive samples comprising 13 sputum, 12 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), 1 urine and 1 stool sample were collected from 2 COVID-19 patients for sensitivity analysis. Precision was assessed via daily tests of positive and negative controls in each kit for 5 d. Reproducibility was examined by repeating 21 samples and 10-fold dilutions of 14 samples in pairs using Allplex. Specificity was evaluated with 24 other respiratory virus-positive samples. LOD of Allplex, PowerChek, and Real-Q were 153.9, 84.1, and 80.6 copies/mL, respectively. The degrees of association between Cts and log viral concentrations by Allplex and PowerChek was expressed as y = -3.319 log (x) + 42.039 (R = 0.96) and y = -3.392 log(x) + 43.113 (R = 0.98), respectively. One or more of the 4 kits detected 20 out of 27 clinical samples positive. Of the 20 positive samples, the detection rates of positives for Allplex, PowerChek, Real-Q, and StandardM were 90.0, 82.3, 75.0, and 100.0%, respectively, but those of PowerChek and Real-Q would be 100% if out-of-cutoff Cts were counted as positives. Precision was 100%. Interpretation of Allplex results was reproducible when Ct of E ≤33. All 4 kits showed no cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses. Performance of the 4 kits indicated the suitability of these for diagnosis and follow-up testing of COVID-19. Laboratory doctors who initially implement these EUA kits must be able to interpret quality control parameters.

15.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 26(10): 2353-2360, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-691167

ABSTRACT

External quality assessment (EQA) is essential for ensuring reliable test results, especially when laboratories are using assays authorized for emergency use for newly emerging pathogens. We developed an EQA panel to assess the quality of real-time reverse transcription PCR assays being used in South Korea to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). With the participation of 23 public health organization laboratories and 95 nongovernmental laboratories involved in SARS-CoV-2 testing, we conducted qualitative and semiquantitative performance assessments by using pooled respiratory samples containing different viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 or human coronavirus OC43. A total of 110 (93.2%) laboratories reported correct results for all qualitative tests; 29 (24.6%) laboratories had >1 outliers according to cycle threshold values. Our EQA panel identified the potential weaknesses of currently available commercial reagent kits. The methodology we used can provide practical experience for those planning to conduct evaluations for testing of SARS-CoV-2 and other emerging pathogens in the future.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/analysis , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Laboratory Proficiency Testing , Pandemics , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Republic of Korea , Respiratory System/virology , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Ann Lab Med ; 40(6): 439-447, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-599917

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Early detection of COVID-19 and immediate isolation of infected patients from the naive population are important to prevent further pandemic spread of the infection. Real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA is currently the most reliable diagnostic method for confirming COVID-19 worldwide. Guidelines for clinical laboratories on the COVID-19 diagnosis have been recently published by Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, these formal guidelines do not address common practical laboratory issues related to COVID-19 real-time RT-PCR testing and their solutions. Therefore, this guideline is intended as a practical and technical supplement to the "Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea".


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins , Guanidines/chemistry , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Open Reading Frames/genetics , Oropharynx/virology , Pandemics , Phosphoproteins , Pneumonia, Viral/genetics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA, Viral/metabolism , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Republic of Korea , SARS-CoV-2 , Thiocyanates/chemistry , Viral Envelope Proteins/genetics , Viroporin Proteins
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL