A survey of laboratory biosafety and protective measures in blood transfusion departments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Thousands of healthcare workers (HCWs) have been infected with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Laboratory personnel in blood transfusion departments may be infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) if laboratory biosafety protection is insufficient. Therefore, we investigated the current situation of laboratory biosafety protection in blood transfusion departments to determine how to improve the safety of laboratory processes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was conducted in blood transfusion departments from 1st to 6th May 2020 in China. A total of 653 individuals completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed with reference to COVID-19 laboratory biosafety summarized in Annex II. All responses were summarized using only descriptive statistics and expressed as frequencies and ratios [n (%)]. RESULTS: Most participants were concerned about COVID-19. Some participants had inadequate knowledge of COVID-19. Two participants stated that there were laboratory personnel infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their departments. A total of 31 (4.7%) participants did not receive any safety and security training. In terms of laboratory biosafety protection practices, the major challenges were suboptimal laboratory safety practices and insufficient laboratory conditions. CONCLUSION: The major deficiencies were insufficient security and safety training, and a lack of personal protective equipment, automatic cap removal centrifuges and biosafety cabinets. Consequently, we should enhance the security and safety training of laboratory personnel to improve their laboratory biosafety protection practices and ensure that laboratory conditions are sufficient to improve the safety of laboratory processes.

Cautions on the laboratory indicators of COVID-19 patients on and during admission.

BACKGROUND: Different disease severities of COVID-19 patients could be reflected on clinical laboratory findings. METHODS: In this single-centered retrospective study, demographic, clinical, and laboratory indicators on and during admission were compared among 74 participants with mild, moderate, critical severe, or severe classification. Risk factors associated with disease severity were analyzed by multivariate analyses. The AUC and 95% CI of the ROC curve were calculated. RESULTS: The most common manifestations of these patients were fever and cough. Critical severe or severe group owned the longest length of stay (23 (19,31), p < 0.001). After multivariate logistic regression, independent influence factors on admission for severity of disease were CK-MB (OR 0.674; 95% CI 0.489-0.928; p = 0.016), LDH (OR 1.111 or 1.107; 95% CI 1.026-1.204 or 1.022-1.199; p = 0.009 or 0.013), normal T-BIL (OR 4.58 × 10-8 ; 95% CI 3.05 × 10-9 -6.88 × 10-7 ; p < 0.001), LYM% (OR 0.008; 95% CI 0-0.602; p = 0.029), and normal ESR (OR 0.016; 95% CI 0-0.498; p = 0.019). Factors during hospitalization were normal T-BIL (OR 8.56 × 10-9 ; 95% CI 8.30 × 10-10 -8.83 × 10-8 ; p < 0.001), LYM (OR 0.068; 95% CI 0.005-0.934; p = 0.044), albumin (OR 0.565; 95% CI 0.327-0.977; p = 0.041), and normal NEU% (OR 0.013; 95% CI 0.000-0.967; p = 0.048). Combined indicators of AUC were 0.860 (LYM, LDH, and normal ESR on admission, p < 0.001) and 0.750 (CK-MB, LDH, and normal T-BIL during hospitalization, p = 0.020) when predicting for severe or critical severe patients. CONCLUSION: To pay close attention to the progression of COVID-19 and take measures promptly, we should be cautious of the laboratory indicators when patients on admission especially CK-MB, LDH, LYM%, T-BIL as well as ESR; and T-BIL, LYM, albumin, NEU% with the process of disease.