Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Front Public Health ; 8: 573925, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1021920


Background: SARS-CoV-2 continues to claim hundreds of thousands of people's lives. It mostly affects the elderly and those with chronic illness but can also be fatal in younger age groups. This article is the first comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and clinical outcomes of the travel-associated SARS-CoV-2 cases until April 19, 2020. Methods: Demographic and clinical data of travel-associated SARS-CoV-2 cases were collected for the period between January 16, 2020 and April 19, 2020. More than one hundred and eighty databases were searched, including the World Health Organization (WHO) database, countries' ministries websites, and official media sites. Demographic and clinical data were extracted and analyzed. Results: A total of 1,186 cases from 144 countries meeting the inclusion criteria were reported and included in the analysis. The mean age of the cases was 44 years, with a male to female ratio of 1.6:1. Travel-associated cases originated from more than 40 countries, with China, Italy, and Iran reporting the highest numbers at 208, 225, and 155, respectively. Clinical symptoms varied between patients, with some reporting symptoms during the flights (117 cases; 9.87%). A total of 312 (26.31%) cases were hospitalized, of which 50 cases (4.22%) were fatal. Conclusion: Major gaps exist in the epidemiology and clinical spectrum of the COVID-19 travel-associated cases due to a lack of reporting and sharing data of many counties. The identification and implementation of methodologies for measuring traveler's risk to coronavirus would help in minimizing the spread of the virus, especially in the next waves.

COVID-19 , Demography , Infection Control , Travel , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Italy/epidemiology , Male , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
Int J Infect Dis ; 102: 181-187, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-893927


OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the performances of five commercial ELISA assays (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. METHODS: Seventy negative control samples (collected before the COVID-19 pandemic) and samples from 101 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected at different time points from symptom onset: ≤7, 8-14 and >14 days) were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and positive and negative predictive values of each assay with RT-PCR. A concordance assessment between the five assays was also conducted. Cross-reactivity with other HCoV, non-HCoV respiratory viruses, non-respiratory viruses, and nuclear antigens was investigated. RESULTS: Lionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%; 95% CI 92.3-99.8), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%; 95% CI 90.2-99.2), NovaTec (85.7%; 95% CI 75.7-92.1), then AnshLabs (75.7%; 95% CI 64.5-84.2). All ELISA kits cross-reacted with one anti-MERS IgG-positive sample, except Lionex. The sensitivity was low during the early stages of the disease but improved over time. After 14 days from symptom onset, Lionex and NovaTec showed the highest sensitivity at 87.9% (95% CI 72.7-95.2) and 86.4% (95% CI 78.5-91.7), respectively. The agreement with RT-PCR results based on Cohen's kappa was as follows: Lionex (0.89) > NovaTec (0.70) > Dia.Pro (0.69) > AnshLabs (0.63) > EDI (0.55). CONCLUSION: The Lionex and NovaLisa IgG ELISA kits, demonstrated the best overall performance.

Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Cross Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged