Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Clin Chim Acta ; 519: 148-152, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1208997

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a halt to in-person ambulatory care. We evaluated how the reduction in access to care affected HbA1c testing and patient HbA1c levels. METHODS: HbA1c data from 11 institutions were extracted to compare testing volume and the percentage of abnormal results between a pre-pandemic period (January-June 2019, period 1) and a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic period (Jan-June 2020, period 2). HbA1c results greater than 6.4% were categorized as abnormal. RESULTS: HbA1C testing volumes decreased in March, April and May by 23, 61 and 40% relative to the corresponding months in 2019. The percentage of abnormal results increased in April, May and June (25, 23, 9%). On average, we found that the frequency of abnormal results increased by 0.31% for every 1% decrease in testing volume (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSION: HbA1c testing volume for outpatients decreased by up to 70% during the early months of the pandemic. The decrease in testing was associated with an increase in abnormal HbA1c results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Outpatients , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(4)2021 03 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1153644

ABSTRACT

We compared the performance of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 antigen card to that of a standard reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (Thermo Fisher TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit) for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2,645 asymptomatic students presenting for screening at the University of Utah. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 1.7% of the study participants by RT-PCR. BinaxNOW identified 24 infections but missed 21 infections that were detected by RT-PCR. The analytical sensitivity (positive agreement) and analytical specificity (negative agreement) for the BinaxNOW were 53.3% and 100%, respectively, compared to the RT-PCR assay. The median cycle threshold (CT ) value in the specimens that had concordant positive BinaxNOW antigen results was significantly lower than that of specimens that were discordant (CT of 17.6 versus 29.6; P < 0.001). In individuals with presumably high viral loads (CT of <23.0), a 95.8% positive agreement was observed between the RT-PCR assay and BinaxNOW. Due to the possibility of false-negative results, caution must be taken when utilizing rapid antigen testing for screening asymptomatic individuals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antigens, Viral , Humans , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Universities
3.
J Appl Lab Med ; 6(4): 953-961, 2021 07 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1147984

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have documented reduced access to patient care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including access to diagnostic or screening tests, prescription medications, and treatment for an ongoing condition. In the context of clinical management for venous thromboembolism, this could result in suboptimal therapy with warfarin. We aimed to determine the impact of the pandemic on utilization of International Normalized Ratio (INR) testing and the percentage of high and low results. METHODS: INR data from 11 institutions were extracted to compare testing volume and the percentage of INR results ≥3.5 and ≤1.5 between a pre-pandemic period (January-June 2019, period 1) and a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic period (January-June 2020, period 2). The analysis was performed for inpatient and outpatient cohorts. RESULTS: Testing volumes showed relatively little change in January and February, followed by a significant decrease in March, April, and May, and then returned to baseline in June. Outpatient testing showed a larger percentage decrease in testing volume compared to inpatient testing. At 10 of the 11 study sites, we observed an increase in the percentage of abnormal high INR results as test volumes decreased, primarily among outpatients. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted INR testing among outpatients which may be attributable to several factors. Increased supratherapeutic INR results during the pandemic period when there was reduced laboratory utilization and access to care is concerning because of the risk of adverse bleeding events in this group of patients. This could be mitigated in the future by offering drive-through testing and/or widespread implementation of home INR monitoring.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , International Normalized Ratio/methods , Patient Care/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Warfarin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Venous Thromboembolism/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL