Medical Education during the COVID-19: A Review of Guidelines and Policies Adapted during the 2020 Pandemic.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed education systems as most governments around the world closed schools to prevent outbreaks on campus. Medical education was not immune from these policies, and medical students were deprived of opportunities, particularly in clinical training. To determine how countries worldwide have responded to the pandemic, we conducted a literature review of the policies and guidelines of four countries: Japan, the United States (USA), the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia, as well as case reports of faculty and medical students up to September, 2020. Although the methods of implementation were unique to each country, the concept of "returning medical students to live education as quickly and safely as possible" was common. However, the extent to which students and faculty members became engaged in the treatment process of COVID-19 varied. While some countries endorsed students to work as members of medical staff to treat COVID-19, other countries took measures to ensure the safety of both medical students and patients. We await further reports worldwide in order to better understand the strategies employed by different nations in preparation for future possible infection outbreaks.

Mass Screening of Asymptomatic Persons for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Using Saliva.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved to become a global pandemic, largely owing to the transmission of its causative virus through asymptomatic carriers. Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in asymptomatic people is an urgent priority for the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks in communities. However, few data are available in asymptomatic persons regarding the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction testing. In addition, although self-collected saliva samples have significant logistical advantages in mass screening, their utility as an alternative specimen in asymptomatic persons is yet to be determined. METHODS: We conducted a mass screening study to compare the utility of nucleic acid amplification, such as reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, using nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and saliva samples from each individual in 2 cohorts of asymptomatic persons: the contact-tracing cohort and the airport quarantine cohort. RESULTS: In this mass screening study including 1924 individuals, the sensitivities of nucleic acid amplification testing with NPS and saliva specimens were 86% (90% credible interval, 77%-93%) and 92% (83%-97%), respectively, with specificities >99.9%. The true concordance probability between the NPS and saliva tests was estimated at 0.998 (90% credible interval, .996-.999) given the recent airport prevalence of 0.3%. In individuals testing positive, viral load was highly correlated between NPS and saliva specimens. CONCLUSION: Both NPS and saliva specimens had high sensitivity and specificity. Self-collected saliva specimens are valuable for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in mass screening of asymptomatic persons.

Logistic advantage of two-step screening strategy for SARS-CoV-2 at airport quarantine.

BACKGROUND: Airport quarantine is required to reduce the risk of entry of travelers infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, it is challenging for both high accuracy and rapid turn-around time to coexist in testing; polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is time-consuming with high accuracy, while antigen testing is rapid with less accuracy. However, there are few data on the concordance between PCR and antigen testing. METHODS: Arrivals at three international airports in Japan between July 29 and September 30, 2020 were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using self-collected saliva by a screening strategy with initial chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) followed by confirmatory nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) only for intermediate range antigen concentrations. RESULTS: Among the 95,457 persons entering Japan during the period, 88,924 (93.2%) were tested by CLEIA, and 0.29% (254/88,924) were found to be SARS-CoV-2 antigen positive (≥4.0 pg/mL). NAAT was required for confirmatory testing in 0.58% (513/88,924) with intermediate antigen concentrations (0.67-4.0 pg/mL) whereby the virus was detected in 6.6% (34/513). This two-step strategy reduced the utilization of NAAT to one out of every 173 test subjects. The estimated performance of this strategy did not show significant increase in false negatives as compared to performing NAAT in all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Point of care testing by quantitative CLEIA using self-collected saliva is less labor-intensive and yields results rapidly, thus suitable as an initial screening test. Reserving NAAT for CLEIA indeterminate cases may prevent compromising accuracy while significantly improving the logistics of administering mass-screening at large venues.

A novel strategy for SARS-CoV-2 mass screening with quantitative antigen testing of saliva: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection requires medical personnel and is time consuming, and thus is poorly suited to mass screening. In June, 2020, a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA; Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag kit, Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan) was developed that can detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleoproteins in NPS or saliva samples within 35 min. In this study, we assessed the utility of CLEIA in mass SARS-CoV-2 screening. METHODS: We did a diagnostic accuracy study to develop a mass-screening strategy for salivary detection of SARS-CoV-2 by CLEIA, enrolling hospitalised patients with clinically confirmed COVID-19, close contacts identified at community health centres, and asymptomatic international arrivals at two airports, all based in Japan. All test participants were enrolled consecutively. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CLEIA compared with RT-qPCR, estimated according to concordance (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W), and sensitivity (probability of CLEIA positivity given RT-qPCR positivity) and specificity (probability of CLEIA negativity given RT-qPCR negativity) for different antigen concentration cutoffs (0·19 pg/mL, 0·67 pg/mL, and 4·00 pg/mL; with samples considered positive if the antigen concentration was equal to or more than the cutoff and negative if it was less than the cutoff). We also assessed a two-step testing strategy post hoc with CLEIA as an initial test, using separate antigen cutoff values for test negativity and positivity from the predefined cutoff values. The proportion of intermediate results requiring secondary RT-qPCR was then quantified assuming prevalence values of RT-qPCR positivity in the overall tested population of 10%, 30%, and 50%. FINDINGS: Self-collected saliva was obtained from 2056 participants between June 12 and Aug 6, 2020. Results of CLEIA and RT-qPCR were concordant in 2020 (98·2%) samples (Kendall's W=0·99). Test sensitivity was 85·4% (76 of 89 positive samples; 90% credible interval [CrI] 78·0-90·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL; 76·4% (68 of 89; 68·2-82·8) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL; and 52·8% (47 of 89; 44·1-61·3) at the cutoff of 4·0 pg/mL. Test specificity was 91·3% (1796 of 1967 negative samples; 90% CrI 90·2-92·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL, 99·2% (1952 of 1967; 98·8-99·5) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL, and 100·0% (1967 of 1967; 99·8-100·0) at the cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL. Using a two-step testing strategy with a CLEIA negativity cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL (to maximise sensitivity) and a CLEIA positivity cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL (to maximise specificity), the proportions of indeterminate results (ie, samples requiring secondary RT-qPCR) would be approximately 11% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 10%, 16% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 30%, and 21% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 50%. INTERPRETATION: CLEIA testing of self-collected saliva is simple and provides results quickly, and is thus suitable for mass testing. To improve accuracy, we propose a two-step screening strategy with an initial CLEIA test followed by confirmatory RT-qPCR for intermediate concentrations, varying positive and negative thresholds depending on local prevalence. Implementation of this strategy has expedited sample processing at Japanese airports since July, 2020, and might apply to other large-scale mass screening initiatives. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.

Equivalent SARS-CoV-2 viral loads by PCR between nasopharyngeal swab and saliva in symptomatic patients.

Emerging evidences have shown the utility of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by PCR as alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, conflicting results have been reported regarding viral loads between NPS and saliva. We conducted a study to compare the viral loads between NPS and saliva in 42 COVID-19 patients. Viral loads were estimated by the cycle threshold (Ct) values. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 34 (81%) using NPS with median Ct value of 27.4, and 38 (90%) using saliva with median Ct value of 28.9 (P = 0.79). Kendall's W was 0.82, showing a high degree of agreement, indicating equivalent viral loads in NPS and saliva. After symptom onset, the Ct values of both NPS and saliva continued to increase over time, with no substantial difference. Self-collected saliva has a detection sensitivity comparable to that of NPS and is a useful diagnostic tool with mitigating uncomfortable process and the risk of aerosol transmission to healthcare workers.