Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e047110, 2021 02 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1075984


OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and false-negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and develop and internally validate a diagnostic risk score to predict risk of COVID-19 (including RT-PCR-negative COVID-19) among medical admissions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two hospitals within an acute NHS Trust in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to medical wards between 2 March and 3 May 2020. OUTCOMES: Main outcomes were diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and mortality during hospital admission. For the diagnostic risk score, we report discrimination, calibration and diagnostic accuracy of the model and simplified risk score and internal validation. RESULTS: 4008 patients were admitted between 2 March and 3 May 2020. 1792 patients (44.8%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 1391 were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and 283 had only negative RT-PCRs. Compared with a clinical reference standard, sensitivity of RT-PCR in hospital patients was 83.1% (95% CI 81.2%-84.8%). Broadly, patients with false-negative RT-PCR COVID-19 and those confirmed by positive PCR had similar demographic and clinical characteristics but lower risk of intensive care unit admission and lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.61). A simple diagnostic risk score comprising of age, sex, ethnicity, cough, fever or shortness of breath, National Early Warning Score 2, C reactive protein and chest radiograph appearance had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver-operator curve 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85), good calibration and was internally validated. CONCLUSION: RT-PCR-negative COVID-19 is common and is associated with lower mortality despite similar presentation. Diagnostic risk scores could potentially help triage patients requiring admission but need external validation.

COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , False Negative Reactions , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , London/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 2020 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-926296


BACKGROUND: Although evidence suggests that demographic characteristics including minority ethnicity increase the risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is unclear whether these characteristics, together with occupational factors, influence anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in hospital staff. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG amongst staff at University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust. We quantified seroprevalence stratified by ethnicity, occupation and seniority of practitioner and used logistic regression to examine demographic and occupational factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: A total of 1148/10662 (10.8%) hospital staff members were seropositive. Compared to White staff (seroprevalence 9.1%), seroprevalence was higher in South Asian (12.3%) and Black (21.2%) staff. The occupations and department with the highest seroprevalence were nurses/healthcare assistants (13.7%) and the Emergency Department (ED)/Acute Medicine (17.5%), respectively. Seroprevalence decreased with seniority in medical/nursing practitioners. Minority ethnicity was associated with seropositivity on an adjusted analysis (South Asian: aOR 1.26; 95%CI: 1.07-1.49 and Black: 2.42; 1.90-3.09). Anaesthetics/ICU staff members were less likely to be seropositive than ED/Acute medicine staff (0.41; 0.27-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity and occupational factors, including specialty and seniority, are associated with seropositivity for anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG. These findings could be used to inform occupational risk assessments for front-line healthcare workers.