Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(5): 869-872, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1114831

ABSTRACT

We found low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 (2.7% [5/188]) among pregnant and postpartum patients with universal testing. Prevalence among symptomatic patients was similar under initial targeted screening (22.2% [4/18]) and universal approaches (19.1% [8/42]). Among 170 asymptomatic patients, 2 were positive or inconclusive, respectively; repeat testing at 24 hours was negative.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Humans , Postpartum Period , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiology
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 71(10): 2702-2707, 2020 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059704

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) who serve on the front lines of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been at increased risk for infection due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in some settings. Healthcare-acquired infection has been reported in similar epidemics, but there are limited data on the prevalence of COVID-19 among HCWs and their associated clinical outcomes in the United States. METHODS: We established 2 high-throughput employee testing centers in Seattle, Washington, with drive-through and walk-through options for symptomatic employees in the University of Washington Medicine system and its affiliated organizations. Using data from these testing centers, we report the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among symptomatic employees and describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes among employees with COVID-19. RESULTS: Between 12 March 2020 and 23 April 2020, 3477 symptomatic employees were tested for COVID-19 at 2 employee testing centers; 185 (5.3%) employees tested positive for COVID-19. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was similar when comparing frontline HCWs (5.2%) with nonfrontline staff (5.5%). Among 174 positive employees reached for follow-up at least 14 days after diagnosis, 6 reported COVID-related hospitalization; all recovered. CONCLUSIONS: During the study period, we observed that the prevalence of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests among symptomatic HCWs was comparable to that of symptomatic nonfrontline staff. Reliable and rapid access to testing for employees is essential to preserve the health, safety, and availability of the healthcare workforce during this pandemic and to facilitate the rapid return of SARS-CoV-2-negative employees to work.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Health Personnel , Humans , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiology
3.
Am J Otolaryngol ; 41(5): 102604, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-628588

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The role of topical anti-infectives in acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis is controversial. Povidone-iodine is an anti-bacterial and anti-viral that is affordable and available over-the-counter and may demonstrate advantages over mupirocin as a sinus irrigation therapy. The objective was to compare povidone-iodine or mupirocin versus saline sinus irrigations for sinusitis exacerbations in post-surgery subjects as well as to assess tolerability of povidone-iodine sinus irrigations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective single-blinded (clinician only) randomized controlled trial. Subjects were post-surgery with acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis and gram-positive bacteria on culture. They received povidone-iodine, mupirocin, or saline sinus irrigations, twice daily for 30 days. Outcomes were post-treatment culture negativity (primary) and Sinonasal Outcome Test-20 and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score change (secondary). RESULTS: Of the 62 subjects analyzed, post-treatment culture negativity rate was higher in the MUP (14/20, 70%) group compared to the PI (9/21, 43%) and SAL (9/19, 47%) groups, although this was not significant (p = 0.29). Povidone-iodine sinus irrigations at the 1% concentration were very well-tolerated, similar to saline irrigations. There were no significant differences in Sinonasal Outcome Test-20 score (povidone-iodine -0.3 [-0.6, 0.05] vs. mupirocin -0.3 [-0.7, 0.05] vs. saline -0.4 [-0.8, 0.05]; p = 0.86) or Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score (povidone-iodine -3.5 [-7, -0.5] vs. mupirocin -2 [-4, 2] vs. saline -3 [-5, 0]; p = 0.45) change. No serious adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have had prior sinus surgery with acute exacerbations of CRS and gram-positive bacteria on culture, mupirocin sinus irrigations achieved a better post-treatment culture "control" rate compared to saline and povidone-iodine. In addition, 1% povidone-iodine solution was well-tolerated as a sinus irrigation and may represent a feasible method for temporarily disinfecting the sinonasal cavity of bacteria and viruses such as COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Mupirocin/therapeutic use , Postoperative Complications/drug therapy , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , Rhinitis/drug therapy , Sinusitis/drug therapy , Adult , Anti-Infective Agents, Local , Chronic Disease , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Prospective Studies , Rhinitis/diagnosis , Rhinitis/etiology , Saline Solution , Single-Blind Method , Sinusitis/diagnosis , Sinusitis/etiology , Therapeutic Irrigation
5.
Respir Med Case Rep ; 30: 101120, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-610960

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is required for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sensitivity of RT-PCR nasopharyngeal (NP) testing is presumed to be high, but there is no gold standard against which this has been determined. The objective was to determine whether lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), detected in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), occurs in the absence of upper respiratory tract infection with clinical testing of both specimen types. METHODS: Between March 26, 2020 and April 17, 2020 at the University of Washington Medical Center all patients with BALF specimens clinically tested for SARS-CoV-2 were identified. We assessed the proportion of patients with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in BALF after negative NP testing. We describe 3 cases with positive testing in BALF. RESULTS: Among 16 patients with BALF samples, 3 cases (19%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in BALF. In Case 1, negative NP testing occurred early in the infection and respiratory symptoms may have been missed due to neurologic injury. In Case 2, outpatient diagnosis was aspiration pneumonia, but clinical suspicion remained high for COVID-19 at hospitalization based on epidemiological and clinical features. All 3 cases involved older adults (age >65 years), one of whom was immunosuppressed in the setting of lung transplantation (Case 3). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 LRTI occurs in the presence of negative NP testing. NP testing may underestimate the prevalence of COVID-19 and has implications for spread of SARS-CoV2 in the community and healthcare setting.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL