Feasibility and acceptability of saliva-based testing for the screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in prison.

Background: Saliva molecular tests have shown a similar sensitivity and specificity compared to nasopharyngeal test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected Lombardy prisons, generating the need for extensive contact tracing activities and for detecting asymptomatic carriers. The availability of a less invasive test in a setting that hosts a high-risk and often hard-to-reach population, suggests its possible use in prisons. Methods: The study was carried out on a population of new incomers in Milan San Vittore pre-trial prison. All the new incomers were submitted to quarantine and to saliva test and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection at the entry and at the end of quarantine before their admission in community (Protocol 1-February 2nd to March 5th, 2021). Starting from March 8th to July 30th, 2021, the screening protocol was adjusted to avoid biases in sample collection (Protocol II), and saliva testing was performed at entrance. Results: 12/1,120 enrolled subjects were excluded from the study. Among the 1,080 processed samples, 1 tested positive, 5 weakly positive, 1,069 negative, 3 were invalid, and 2 samples tested positive for the viral gene N2 only, with Ct value above 38. During Protocol I, 6/156 coupled saliva/NPS tests were discordant due to food ingestion prior saliva collection, prompting us to establishing Protocol II. Conclusions: Saliva molecular testing is feasible in prison setting, being less invasive and easier to use, and reliable. Acceptability was very high even in a complex context as that of newly incarcerated persons.

Long-term analysis of the effects of COVID-19 in people with epilepsy: Results from a multicenter on-line survey across the pandemic waves.

PURPOSE: The worldwide pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus posed many challenges to the scientific and medical communities, including the protection and management of fragile populations. People with epilepsy (PWE) are a heterogenous group of subjects, with different treatment regimens and severity of symptoms. During the National lockdown, in Italy many patients with chronic conditions lost their regular follow-up program. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on their health status, from the start of the pandemic (March 2020) to July 2021 and one year later. METHODS: We proposed an online questionnaire to subjects followed up at different epilepsy centers located in Milano, Monza & Lodi, three of Lombardy, Northern Italy, the most affected areas by the pandemic. Survey evaluated age, sex, characteristics of patients, type of epilepsy and therapies, COVID-19 diagnosis, vaccines, sleep quality, and anxiety status. RESULTS: Among 178 analyzed surveys, 37 individuals reported symptoms of COVID-19 in closed contacts, including 9 with molecular diagnosis and 16 PWE performing the nasopharyngeal swab with 3 positive cases. One year later, 35 individuals reported at least one symptom overlapping with those typical of COVID-19, 8 received COVID-19 diagnosis, among which 6 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. According to the sleep quality scale assessment, most PWE (52.3%) had poor sleep quality. Assessing anxiety status, 32 (38.1%) had a pathological score. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study, we observed that PWE do not appear to be at a higher risk of severe COVID-19. It will be fundamental monitoring this group to assess possible differences in long-COVID-19 and/or neuro-COVID-19 prevalence. On the other hand, our survey confirmed the impact of the pandemic on anxiety and quality of sleep in PWE. Thus, it is important to promptly recognize and treat psychological distress in PWE, because it could be a risk factor in seizure aggravation and quality-of-life deterioration. Telemedicine appears to be a useful tool to support patients with chronic diseases, such as epilepsy.

Low eGFR Is a Strong Predictor of Worse Outcome in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of COVID-19 is more severe in elderly patients with cardio-metabolic co-morbidities. Chronic kidney disease is considered an independent cardiovascular risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the impact of reduced eGFR on the composite outcome of admission to ICU and death in a sample of consecutive COVID-19 hospitalized patients. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical records of a consecutive sample of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A total of 231 patients were considered for statistical analysis. The whole sample was divided in two groups on the basis of eGFR value, e.g., ≥ or <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients with low eGFR were further divided among those with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and those without (AKI, acute kidney injury). The primary outcome was a composite of admission to ICU or death, whichever occurred first. The single components were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-nine (34.2%) patients reached the composite outcome. A total of 64 patients (27.7%) died during hospitalization, and 41 (17.7%) were admitted to the ICU. A significantly higher number of events was present among patients with low eGFR (p < 0.0001). Age (p < 0.001), SpO2 (p < 0.001), previous anti-platelet treatment (p = 0.006), Charlson's Comorbidities Index (p < 0.001), serum creatinine (p < 0.001), eGFR (p = 0.003), low eGFR (p < 0.001), blood glucose levels (p < 0.001), and LDH (p = 0.003) were significantly associated with the main outcome in univariate analysis. Low eGFR (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.02-2.63, p = 0.040) and age (HR per 5 years 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36, p < 0.001) were significantly and independently associated with the main outcome in the multivariate model. Patients with AKI showed an increased hazard ratio to reach the combined outcome (p = 0.059), while those patients with both CKD had a significantly higher probability of developing the combined outcome (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with reduced eGFR at admission should be considered at high risk for clinical deterioration and death, requiring the best supportive treatment in order to prevent the worst outcome.

Does school reopening affect SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among school-age children in Milan?

The benefits of schools' closure, used as a containment strategy by many European countries, must be carefully considered against the adverse effects of child wellbeing. In this study, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, which better estimates the real extent of the infection unraveling asymptomatic cases, among schoolchildren aged 3 to 18 in Milan, using dried blood spot, a safe and extremely viable methods for children, and then compared it between September 2020 and January 2021. Secondly, we evaluated the seroconversion rate and compared it between students attending schools in presence and those switched to distance-learning, using a logistic regression model, both as univariate and multivariate, adjusting for age and biological-sex. Among 1109 pupils, we found a seroprevalence of 2.8% in September before school reopening, while in January 2021, the seropositive rate was 12.5%, reflecting the general growth rate of infections during the second pandemic wave. The overall seroconversion rate was 10%, with no differences based on biological-sex and age groups; we observed no seroreversion. When considered age groups, the seroconversion rate was 10.5% (95%Confidence Interval, 2.9-24.8) among children attending preschools, 10.6% (95%Confidence Interval, 8.2-13.4) for primary schools, 9.9% (95%Confidence Interval, 6.8-13.8) for secondary schools, and 7.8% (95%Confidence Interval, 4-13.2) among high-school students. Interestingly, no differences in seroconversion rate were found between students who attended school compared to those who started remote learning in the first days of November. Furthermore, most patients (61%) reported that the contact occurred within the household. We reported a low seroconversion rate among school children in Milan, with no differences between those who attended from September 2020 to January 2021 compared to those who switched to remote learning in the first days of November. Our data suggest that schools do not amplify SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but rather reflect the level of the transmission in the community.

Lung Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Not Always and Not Only What Is COVID-19 "Glitters".

Background: In the current coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, lung ultrasound (LUS) has been extensively employed to evaluate lung involvement and proposed as a useful screening tool for early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED), prehospitalization triage, and treatment monitoring of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, the actual effectiveness of LUS in characterizing lung involvement in COVID-19 is still unclear. Our aim was to evaluate LUS diagnostic performance in assessing or ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia when compared with chest CT (gold standard) in a population of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Methods: A total of 260 consecutive RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were included in the study. All the patients underwent both chest CT scan and concurrent LUS at admission, within the first 6-12 h of hospital stay. Results: Chest CT scan was considered positive when showing a "typical" or "indeterminate" pattern for COVID-19, according to the RSNA classification system. Disease prevalence for COVID-19 pneumonia was 90.77%. LUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 56.78% in detecting lung alteration. The concordance rate for the assessment of abnormalities by both methods increased in the case of peripheral distribution and middle-lower lung location of lesions and in cases of more severe lung involvement. A total of nine patients had a "false-positive" LUS examination. Alternative diagnosis included chronic heart disease (six cases), bronchiectasis (two cases), and subpleural emphysema (one case). LUS specificity was 62.50%. Collateral findings indicative of overlapping conditions at chest CT were recorded also in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and appeared distributed with increasing frequency passing from the group with mild disease (17 cases) to that with severe disease (40 cases). Conclusions: LUS does not seem to be an adequate tool for screening purposes in the ED, due to the risk of missing some lesions and/or to underestimate the actual extent of the disease. Furthermore, the not specificity of LUS implies the possibility to erroneously classify pre-existing or overlapping conditions as COVID-19 pneumonia. It seems more safe to integrate a positive LUS examination with clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and radiologic findings to suggest a "virosis." Viral testing confirmation is always required.

Saliva detection of SARS-CoV-2 for mitigating company outbreaks: a surveillance experience, Milan, Italy, March 2021.

Monitoring the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) community-wide transmission with a suitable and effective sampling method would be of great support for public health response to the spreading due to asymptomatic subjects in the community.Here, we describe how using saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection has allowed for a weekly surveillance of a small business company and the early detection of coronavirus disease 2019 cases.As on 23rd March, two cases were detected and investigated, and control measures were rapidly applied.

Low Sensitivity of Admission Lung US Compared to Chest CT for Diagnosis of Lung Involvement in a Cohort of 82 Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

Background and Objectives: The potential role of lung ultrasound (LUS) in characterizing lung involvement in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still debated. The aim of the study was to estimate sensitivity of admission LUS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 lung involvement using Chest-CT (Computed Tomography) as reference standard in order to assess LUS usefulness in ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods: Eighty-two patients with confirmed COVID-19 and signs of lung involvement on Chest-CT were consecutively admitted to our hospital and recruited in the study. Chest-CT and LUS examination were concurrently performed within the first 6-12h from admission. Sensitivity of LUS was calculated using CT findings as a reference standard. Results: Global LUS sensitivity in detecting COVID-19 pulmonary lesions was 52%. LUS sensitivity ranged from 8% in case of focal and sporadic ground-glass opacities (mild disease), to 52% for a crazy-paving pattern (moderate disease) and up to 100% in case of extensive subpleural consolidations (severe disease), although LUS was not always able to detect all the consolidations assessed at Chest-CT. LUS sensitivity was higher in detecting a typical Chest-CT pattern (60%) and abnormalities showing a middle-lower zone predominance (79%). Conclusions: As admission LUS may result falsely negative in most cases, it should not be considered as a reliable imaging tool in ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia in patients presenting in ED. It may at least represent an expanded clinical evaluation that needs integration with other diagnostic tests (e.g., nasopharyngeal swab, Chest-CT).

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on cancer immunotherapy in Italy: a survey of young oncologists.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the health systems worldwide. Data regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients (CPs) undergoing or candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. We depicted the practice and adaptations in the management of patients with solid tumors eligible or receiving ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on Campania region. METHODS: This survey (25 questions), promoted by the young section of SCITO (Società Campana di ImmunoTerapia Oncologica) Group, was circulated among Italian young oncologists practicing in regions variously affected by the pandemic: high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. For Campania region, the physician responders were split into those working in cancer centers (CC), university hospitals (UH) and general hospitals (GH). Percentages of agreement, among High (H) versus Medium (M) and versus Low (L) group for Italy and among CC, UH and GH for Campania region, were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and χ2 test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options. RESULTS: This is the first Italian study to investigate the COVID-19 impact on cancer immunotherapy, unique in its type and very clear in the results. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed not to affect the standard practice in the prescription and delivery of ICIs in Italy. Telemedicine was widely used. There was high consensus to interrupt immunotherapy in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and to adopt ICIs with longer schedule interval. The majority of the responders tended not to delay the start of ICIs; there were no changes in supportive treatments, but some of the physicians opted for delaying surgeries (if part of patients' planned treatment approach). The results from responders in Campania did not differ significantly from the national ones. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the efforts of Italian oncologists to maintain high standards of care for CPs treated with ICIs, regardless the regional prevalence of COVID-19, suggesting the adoption of similar solutions. Research on patients treated with ICIs and experiencing COVID-19 will clarify the safety profile to continue the treatments, thus informing on the most appropriate clinical conducts.