Detection of hospital environmental contamination during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron predominance using a highly sensitive air sampling device.

Background and objectives: The high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 has exposed weaknesses in our infection control and detection measures, particularly in healthcare settings. Aerial sampling has evolved from passive impact filters to active sampling using negative pressure to expose culture substrate for virus detection. We evaluated the effectiveness of an active air sampling device as a potential surveillance system in detecting hospital pathogens, for augmenting containment measures to prevent nosocomial transmission, using SARS-CoV-2 as a surrogate. Methods: We conducted air sampling in a hospital environment using the AerosolSenseTM air sampling device and compared it with surface swabs for their capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results: When combined with RT-qPCR detection, we found the device provided consistent SARS-CoV-2 detection, compared to surface sampling, in as little as 2 h of sampling time. The device also showed that it can identify minute quantities of SARS-CoV-2 in designated "clean areas" and through a N95 mask, indicating good surveillance capacity and sensitivity of the device in hospital settings. Conclusion: Active air sampling was shown to be a sensitive surveillance system in healthcare settings. Findings from this study can also be applied in an organism agnostic manner for surveillance in the hospital, improving our ability to contain and prevent nosocomial outbreaks.

Detection of hospital environmental contamination during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron predominance using a highly sensitive air sampling device

Background and objectives The high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 has exposed weaknesses in our infection control and detection measures, particularly in healthcare settings. Aerial sampling has evolved from passive impact filters to active sampling using negative pressure to expose culture substrate for virus detection. We evaluated the effectiveness of an active air sampling device as a potential surveillance system in detecting hospital pathogens, for augmenting containment measures to prevent nosocomial transmission, using SARS-CoV-2 as a surrogate. Methods We conducted air sampling in a hospital environment using the AerosolSenseTM air sampling device and compared it with surface swabs for their capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results When combined with RT-qPCR detection, we found the device provided consistent SARS-CoV-2 detection, compared to surface sampling, in as little as 2 h of sampling time. The device also showed that it can identify minute quantities of SARS-CoV-2 in designated "clean areas” and through a N95 mask, indicating good surveillance capacity and sensitivity of the device in hospital settings. Conclusion Active air sampling was shown to be a sensitive surveillance system in healthcare settings. Findings from this study can also be applied in an organism agnostic manner for surveillance in the hospital, improving our ability to contain and prevent nosocomial outbreaks.

Implications and effects of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to uncertainty on the optimal management for prostate cancer (PCa). This narrative review aims to shed light on the optimal diagnosis and management of patients with or suspected to have PCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Faecal-oral or aerosol transmission is possible during prostate procedures; caution must be in place when performing digital rectal examinations, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and prostate surgeries requiring general anaesthesia. Patients must also be triaged using preoperative polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19. COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), reducing the need for prostate biopsy unless when absolutely indicated, and the risk of COVID-19 spread can be reduced. Combined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, amongst other factors, multiparametric MRI could reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with little chance of clinically significant PCa. Treatment of PCa should be stratified by the risk level and preferences of the patient. COVID-19 has accelerated the development of telemedicine and clinicians should utilise safe and effective teleconsultations to protect themselves and their patients. SUMMARY: COVID-19 transmission during prostate procedures is possible. Patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) of <3 and PSA density <0.15 ng/ml/ml are deemed low-risk and are safe to undergo surveillance without MRI-targeted biopsy. Intermediate- or high-risk patients should be offered definitive treatment within four months or 30days of diagnosis to avoid compromising treatment outcomes; three-month courses of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy can be considered when a delay of surgery is anticipated.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Graft Injury and Re-transplantation in Liver Transplant patients with COVID-19

This article discusses the current scene of liver transplantation (LT) in light of the impact of COVID-19, with particular emphasis on the possibility of graft injury and re-transplantation in LT patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. A major concern is whether such patients experience more severe form of disease thus higher risk of acute, irreversible liver injury. If serious, this may necessitate re-transplantation. It aims to raise awareness in this relatively under-researched domain. More studies are required to evaluate the issue since it has strong implications in healthcare resource allocation and clinical decision-making. Several potential research directions are proposed, including the possibility of prolonging bridging therapy for non-urgent LT cases in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and whether hepatoprotective agents play a role in liver-sparing during SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is also discussion of the relevance of lung injury in LT patients with COVID-19 since it is not uncommon regarding the high expression of ACE2 receptors in the lungs, and that lung injury remains the major cause of death in patients with chronic liver disease.