Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 437
Filter
1.
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease ; : 115891, 2023.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2165214

ABSTRACT

Objectives This study assessed the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS‑CoV‑2 & Influenza A/B assay (LiatCOVID/flu) for the detection of both severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron outbreak. Methods Residual nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPS) previously tested with cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B for SARS-CoV-2 and with the Allplex Respiratory Panel 1 for influenza viruses were collected. All samples were submitted to the LiatCOVID/flu assay. Results A total of 1,147 samples were collected comprising 167 SARS-CoV-2-positive, 556 SARS-CoV-2-negative, 224 influenza-positive, and 200 influenza-negative cases. The positive percent agreement (PPA)/negative percent agreement (NPA) of LiatCOVID/flu for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses compared to the previously tested methods were 100%/100% and 99.6%/100%, respectively. Conclusions The LiatCOVID/flu assay shows an acceptable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using NPS samples.

2.
Surg Neurol Int ; 13: 465, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2164579

ABSTRACT

Background: Due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic and its rapid spread worldwide, an early and effective detection strategy was the nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase swab tests, a procedure still performed today. A relatively safe procedure when done correctly, however, one of the rare complications reported in the literature includes a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Case Description: A 69-year-old female patient presented to the emergency department with clear fluid rhinorrhea, clinically diagnosed with a CSF fistula after a SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Resulting computed tomography and magnetic resonance images did not report any abnormalities; however, persistence of clear fluid rhinorrhea obligated pharmacological treatment without resolution, requiring insertion of a lumbar catheter to achieve clinical resolution. Conclusion: It is essential to train staff to correctly administer nasopharyngeal swabs and thus reduce the rate of complications, as well as early recognition of symptoms and signs of CSF fistula.

3.
Paediatrics and Child Health (Canada) ; 27(Supplement 3):e31, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2161139

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs have been recommended to detect SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but are reported to be at least moderately painful. OBJECTIVE(S): To evaluate the efficacy of intranasal vaporized lidocaine compared to a sham treatment in reducing pain in children undergoing a NP swab in the Emergency Department (ED). DESIGN/METHODS: A randomized double-blinded clinical trial was conducted in a pediatric ED. Both participants and the researcher evaluating the primary outcome were blinded. Children 6 to 17 years old requiring a NP swab were eligible. Participants were randomly allocated to receive intranasal lidocaine or a sham treatment prior to their NP swab. The primary outcome measure was pain during the swab as assessed by the visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures were pain using the verbal numeric rating scale, fear using the children fear scale, and side effects of the intervention. RESULT(S): Eighty-eight participants were enrolled: 45 to the lidocaine group and 43 to the control group. The mean visual analog scale scores for pain were 46 mm in the lidocaine group and 53 mm in the control group (mean difference 7 mm;95%CI -5 to 19 mm). The numeric rating scale and children fear scale were not statistically different between groups. No serious adverse events were observed. Fear prior to the test and younger age were associated with higher pain scores. CONCLUSION(S): Intranasal lidocaine administered prior to NP swabs in the ED did not lower pain scores for school-aged children and youth.

4.
Clin Lab Med ; 42(2): 249-259, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2130430

ABSTRACT

Nasopharyngeal swabs have historically been considered the preferred specimen type for the detection of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. However, in response to a global pandemic with shortages of swabs and specimen transport media, limited access to qualified health care personnel, and needs for large-scale testing in nonmedical settings, alternative sample types have been validated for COVID-19 diagnosis. The purpose of this review is to highlight the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of non-nasopharyngeal respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
5.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(1): e24220, 2021 01 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141289

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Real-time polymerase chain reaction using nasopharyngeal swabs is currently the most widely used diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, false negatives and the sensitivity of this mode of testing have posed challenges in the accurate estimation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection rates. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether technical and, therefore, correctable errors were being made with regard to nasopharyngeal swab procedures. METHODS: We searched a web-based video database (YouTube) for videos demonstrating SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab tests, posted from January 1 to May 15, 2020. Videos were rated by 3 blinded rhinologists for accuracy of swab angle and depth. The overall score for swab angle and swab depth for each nasopharyngeal swab demonstration video was determined based on the majority score with agreement between at least 2 of the 3 reviewers. We then comparatively evaluated video data collected from YouTube videos demonstrating the correct nasopharyngeal swab technique with data from videos demonstrating an incorrect nasopharyngeal swab technique. Multiple linear regression analysis with statistical significance set at P=.05 was performed to determine video data variables associated with the correct nasopharyngeal swab technique. RESULTS: In all, 126 videos met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 52.3% (66/126) of all videos demonstrated the correct swab angle, and 46% (58/126) of the videos demonstrated an appropriate swab depth. Moreover, 45.2% (57/126) of the videos demonstrated both correct nasopharyngeal swab angle and appropriate depth, whereas 46.8% (59/126) of the videos demonstrated both incorrect nasopharyngeal swab angle and inappropriate depth. Videos with correct nasopharyngeal swab technique were associated with the swab operators identifying themselves as a medical professional or as an Ear, Nose, Throat-related medical professional. We also found an association between correct nasopharyngeal swab techniques and recency of video publication date (relative to May 15, 2020). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that over half of the videos documenting the nasopharyngeal swab test showed an incorrect technique, which could elevate false-negative test rates. Therefore, greater attention needs to be provided toward educating frontline health care workers who routinely perform nasopharyngeal swab procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Social Media , Specimen Handling/methods , Video Recording , Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control , Humans , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
6.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(4): e27091, 2021 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported a low prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized COVID-19 cases; however, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association of tobacco smoke exposure with nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) test results for SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease severity accounting for possible confounders. METHODS: The nationwide, self-administered, cross-sectional web-based Italian National Epidemiological Survey on COVID-19 (EPICOVID19) was administered to an Italian population of 198,822 adult volunteers who filled in an online questionnaire between April 13 and June 2, 2020. For this study, we analyzed 6857 individuals with known NPS test results. The associations of smoking status and the dose-response relationship with a positive NPS test result and infection severity were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs by means of logistic and multinomial regression models adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics. RESULTS: Out of the 6857 individuals (mean age 47.9 years, SD 14.1; 4516/6857, 65.9% female), 63.2% (4334/6857) had never smoked, 21.3% (1463/6857) were former smokers, and 15.5% (1060/6857) were current smokers. Compared to nonsmokers, current smokers were younger, were more educated, were less affected by chronic diseases, reported COVID-19-like symptoms less frequently, were less frequently hospitalized, and less frequently tested positive for COVID-19. In multivariate analysis, current smokers had almost half the odds of a positive NPS test result (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45-0.65) compared to nonsmokers. We also found a dose-dependent relationship with tobacco smoke: mild smokers (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.05), moderate smokers (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.73), and heavy smokers (aOR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27-0.53). This inverse association also persisted when considering the severity of the infection. Current smokers had a statistically significantly lower probability of having asymptomatic (aOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.92), mild (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.81), and severe infections (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.42) compared to those who never smoked. CONCLUSIONS: Current smoking was negatively associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection with a dose-dependent relationship. Ad hoc experimental studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this association. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04471701; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04471701.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Smoking/epidemiology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Internet , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
B-Ent ; 18(4):262-266, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2144690

ABSTRACT

Objective: Coronavirus disease-19 pandemic affected the whole world in 2020 and so far caused nearly 2 million deaths. The most commonly used method in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease-19 is to take swabs from specific areas in the upper respiratory tract, especially the nasopharynx. In this article, it was aimed to compare the effects of transoral/transnasal nasopharyngeal swab methods on anxiety score before and after the procedure. Method(s): This study was designed as a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hundred and four volunteers between the ages of 18-65 were included in the study, and volunteers were divided into 2 groups. Transoral method was applied to group-1 and transnasal method was applied to group-2. Visual Analog Scale scoring was performed to measure the anxiety/pain/general discomfort levels of the participants before and after the procedure. Result(s): In this study, 50 volunteers from the transoral group and the rest 54 volunteers from the transnasal group, a total of 104 individuals were included. Before the procedure, no statistically significant difference in anxiety levels was observed between the groups. However, anxiety, pain, and general discomfort levels during the procedure were found to be lower in group 1. Conclusion(s): In the light of the results of our trial, we suggest that the transoral nasopharyngeal swab method can be a better alternative in selected patient groups. The prime advantage of this procedure is that it causes less pain and general discomfort. We think that many complications encountered in the transnasal method can be overcome by the transoral method. Copyright © 2022 B-ENT. All rights reserved.

8.
Revista Chilena de Infectologia ; 39(4):372-381, 2022.
Article in Spanish | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2144032

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of people around the world. Part of control strategies is testing a large proportion of the population to identify and isolate the infected sub-jects. Aim(s): To evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 detection by the performance of a reverse transcription and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) against SARS-CoV-2, using saliva as a matrix compared to a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) to simplify obtaining a diagnostic sample. Method(s): Adults in outpatient care were recruited, 95% of them symptomatic. We studied 530 paired saliva and NPS samples by SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR. Result(s): Fifty-nine individuals tested positive in NPS and 54 in saliva samples. Sensitivity for saliva sample was 91%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 98%. The Kappa index was 0.95 and LR-0.08. On average, the cycle threshold (CT) of saliva was 3.99 points higher than those of NPS (p < 0.0001) showing that viral load (VL) is lower in saliva than in NPS. Viral load in both decreased over the time after onset of symptoms. Saliva sampling was preferred by subjects instead of NPS. Conclusion(s): This study demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR using saliva, even with lower VL, is suitable for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in outpatient adults, especially at early stage of symptoms. Copyright © 2022, Sociedad Chilena de Infectologia. All rights reserved.

9.
Eesti Arst ; 101(Supplement 4):42, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2111967

ABSTRACT

Objectives. The main goal of the study was to develop laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) currently present in Latvia. METHODS. We have studied the latest scientific articles to prognose specific mutations that could be indicators of VOC. Mutations responsible for immune escape were chosen as targets for our LDTs. Multiple TaqMan RT-PCR LDTs detecting alfa, beta, gamma, delta and omicron strains in nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples were developed and validated in our laboratory. RESULTS. More than 15,000 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were tested. In total, 10,874 different VOCs of SARS-CoV-2 were found by our LDTs. Beta, delta and omicron strains were first detected in Latvia by E. Gulbis Laboratory. Sanger sequencing methods for RT-PCR result confirmation were also developed. The first cases of VOCs detected by the RT-PCR method were also confirmed in our laboratory by Sanger sequencing. Our results were later confirmed by the National Reference Laboratory. CONCLUSIONS. Using our laboratory capacity and intellectual potential, we have developed skills for an urgent response to future VOCs of SARS-CoV-2 or other potentially harmful infectious diseases.

10.
Eesti Arst ; 101(Supplement 4):25, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2111899

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the development of diagnostic alternatives. One of the alternatives to RT-PCR (the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics) is direct reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (direct RT-LAMP or just LAMP). A LAMP reaction can be completed in about 30 min. and requires no temperature cycling. Furthermore, LAMP allows for various read-out options, such as fluorescence, electrochemical, or probe-based methods combined with real-time or endpoint detection. In this study, we assessed the viability of self-sampled gargle water direct RT-LAMP (LAMP) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections by estimating its sensitivity with respect to the gold standard indirect RT-PCR of paired oro-naso-pharyngeal swab samples. We also assessed the impact of symptom onset to test time (STT) - i.e., symptom days at sampling, on LAMP. In addition, we appraised the viability of gargle water self-sampling versus oro-nasopharyngeal swab sampling, by comparing paired indirect RT-PCR results. 202 oro-nasopharyngeal swab and paired self-sampled gargle water samples were collected from hospital patients with COVID-19-associated symptoms. LAMP, indirect and direct RT-PCR were performed on all gargle water samples, and indirect RT-PCR was performed on all oro-nasopharyngeal samples. LAMP presented a sensitivity of 80.8% (95% CI: 70.8-90.8%) for sample pairs with sub-25 Ct oro-nasopharyngeal indirect RT-PCR results, and 77.6% (66.2-89.1%) sensitivity for sub-30 Ct samples with STT <= 7 days. STT, independently of Ct value, correlated negatively with LAMP performance. 80.7% agreement was observed between gargle water and oro-nasopharyngeal indirect RT-PCR results. In conclusion, LAMP presents an acceptable sensitivity for low Ct and low STT samples. Gargle water may be considered as a viable sampling method, and LAMP as a screening method, especially for symptomatic persons with low STT values.

11.
Microbiol Spectr ; : e0392322, 2022 Nov 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108239

ABSTRACT

In November 2021, the World Health Organization declared the Omicron variant (B.1.1.519) a variant of concern. Since then, worries have been expressed regarding the ability of usual diagnostic tests to detect the Omicron variant. In addition, some recently published data suggested that the salivary reverse transcription (RT)-PCR might perform better than the current gold standard, nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. In this study, we aimed to compare the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and saliva RT-PCR and assess the diagnostic performances of rapid antigen testing (RAT) in nasopharyngeal and saliva samples. We conducted a prospective clinical study among symptomatic health care professionals consulting the occupational health service of our hospital for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening and hospitalized patients in internal medicine/intensive care wards screened for SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19-compatible symptoms. A composite outcome considering NP PCR and/or saliva PCR was used as a reference standard to define COVID-19 cases. A total of 475 paired NP/saliva specimens have been collected with a positivity rate of 40% (n = 192). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivities of 98% (95% CI, 94 to 99%) and 87% (95% CI, 81 to 91%), respectively, for outpatients (n = 453) and 94% (95% CI, 72 to 99%) and 69% (95% CI, 44 to 86%), respectively, for hospitalized patients (n = 22). Nasopharyngeal rapid antigen testing exhibited much lower diagnostic performances (sensitivity of 66% and 31% for outpatients and inpatients, respectively), while saliva RAT showed a sensitivity of less than 5% in both groups. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR testing remains the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant screening. Salivary RT-PCR can be used as an alternative in case of contraindication to perform NP sampling. The use of RAT should be limited to settings where access to molecular diagnostic methods is lacking. IMPORTANCE The Omicron variant of concern spread rapidly since it was first reported in November 2021 and currently accounts for the vast majority of new infections worldwide. Recent reports suggest that saliva sampling might outweigh nasopharyngeal sampling for the diagnosis of the Omicron variant. Nevertheless, data investigating the best diagnostic strategy specifically for the Omicron variant of concern remain scarce. This study fills this gap in current knowledge and elucidates the question of which strategy to use in which patient. It provides a new basis for further improving COVID-19 screening programs and managing patients suspected to have COVID-19.

12.
Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology ; 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-2100697

ABSTRACT

Saliva samples could be used as a non-invasive method to diagnose COVID-19. We aimed to assess the results of the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of saliva specimens in the detection of COVID-19. We collected saliva and nasopharyngeal (NP) samples from consecutive COVID-19 suspects in Al-Fallujah Teaching Hospital, Anbar, Iraq from November 29, 2021 to February 15, 2022. The results of the two specimens were compared using RT-PCR. For the positive saliva tests, repetition of the test was undertaken at weekly intervals for four weeks from the time of the presentation. There were 55% men and 60% people <= 35 years. The majority of cases presented within 2-5 days (92%) and were of mild severity (89%). A hundred pairs of samples were taken. COVID-19 was diagnosed by NP swab RT-PCR in 56% and 31% of the saliva samples. The saliva samples had 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval ICI] 60.4% e96.6%), 63.8% specificity (95% CI 96.1% e99.9%), and mild coefficient agreement (kappa coefficient = 0.522). The positive test for the saliva samples remained as such in all examined cases in the first and second weeks after the first test, 31/31 and 30/30, respectively. While half of them were positive in the third week (15/30). All cases became negative in the fourth week (0/15). We recommend not using the saliva swab as an alternative to the NP swab in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. However, saliva sample can be used for the follow-up of the COVID-19 subjects, in children, elderly, and handicapped patients.

13.
Indian J Pathol Microbiol ; 65(4): 907-910, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2100023

ABSTRACT

Context: COVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging pandemic that is rapidly spreading with more than 114 million confirmed cases and 2.5 million deaths by far. Nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in VTM has been used as the gold standard respiratory specimen for SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase real-time PCR (rRT-PCR) tests. But now the virus can also be detected in other clinical specimens like bronchoalveolar lavage, sputum, saliva, throat swab, blood, and stool specimens. Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic potential of saliva as a sample in comparison to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR. Settings and Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 256 paired samples (NPS and Saliva) received in the Department of Microbiology, SMS Medical College, Jaipur over a period of 2 months. Methods and Material: NPS from individuals were collected in a sterile tube containing Viral Transport Medium™. Before swab collection, whole saliva was collected by spitting from the suspected patient into a sterile container. Both were stored at room temperature and transferred to the diagnostic laboratory within four hours of collection where extraction was done using Perkin Elmer chemagic extractor and rRT- PCR was performed using NIV, Pune mastermix. Results: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in saliva were 84.26%, 100%, 100%, and 54.05%, respectively. The accuracy of detection of COVID-19 by saliva samples compared to the routinely used NPS samples (considered as the standard reference) for RT PCR was 86.72%. Conclusions: Our results show that saliva as a reliable sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , COVID-19/diagnosis , Saliva , Cross-Sectional Studies , Nasopharynx , India , Specimen Handling/methods
14.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2022 Sep 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2076011

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic evaluation of the ID NOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) assay in various real-world settings among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: Depending on the setting, the ID NOW testing was performed using oropharyngeal swabs (OPSs) taken from patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, asymptomatic close contacts, or asymptomatic individuals as part of outbreak point prevalence screening. From January to April 2021, a select number of sites switched from using OPS to combined oropharyngeal and nasal swab (O + NS) for ID NOW testing. For every individual tested, two swabs were collected by a health care worker: one swab (OPS or O + NS) for ID NOW testing and a separate swab (OPS or nasopharyngeal swab) for RT-PCR. RESULTS: A total of 129 112 paired samples were analysed (16 061 RT-PCR positive). Of these, 81 697 samples were from 42 COVID-19 community collection sites, 16 924 samples were from 69 rural hospitals, 1927 samples were from nine emergency shelters and addiction treatment facilities, 23 802 samples were from six mobile units that responded to 356 community outbreaks, and 4762 O + NS swabs were collected from three community collection sites and one emergency shelter. The ID NOW assay sensitivity was the highest among symptomatic individuals presenting to community collection sites (92.5%; 95% CI, 92.0-93.0%) and the lowest for asymptomatic individuals associated with community outbreaks (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.8-77.7%). Specificity was >99% in all populations tested. DISCUSSION: The sensitivity of ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing is the highest when used in symptomatic community populations not seeking medical care. Sensitivity and positive predictive value drop by approximately 10% when tested on asymptomatic populations. Using combined oropharyngeal and nasal swabs did not improve the performance of ID NOW assay.

15.
Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences ; 16(8):24-26, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2067738

ABSTRACT

Aim: To evaluate the potential use of ivermectin with standard therapy among mild to moderate covid-19 illness. Methods: This is a single-centered, prospective observational, randomized, parallel group (1:1 ratio), standard versus controlled ivermectin study recruited 210 confirmed COVID-19 positive patients who were admitted in COVID treatment center of Dr Ruth Kum Pafu Civil hospital Karachi, Pakistan from 1st November 2020 to 30th May 2021. Data were analyzed using SPSS version Results: Total of 210 patients were enrolled in the study and aged matched patients were divided in two groups 105 patients received ivermectin 6 mg twice a day for five days along with standard therapy while remaining 105 patients received standard therapy as per local and international guidelines. Male were 140(66.7%) and female 70(33.3%);age ranges between 26 to 77 years and majority 140( 66.7%) were more than 50 years of age. Fever, dry cough and dyspnea were the major symptoms seen;112(53.3%) patients had DM as a comorbid illness . Total of 21(20%) of 105 patients of ivermectin group had negative PCR for COVID 19 on day seven while the other group had positive covid test in all of 105 patients . On day 10 total of 49 more patients from ivermectin group found COVID negative along with 21 previously negative had second PCR was found negative in this way total of 70( 66.7%) of ivermectin group had negative PCR for COVID 19 while 21(20%) patients from non ivermectin got negative PCR for COVID 19 on day 10 . Conclusion: Use of ivermectin with standard therapy clear the virus earlier than standard therapy in mild to moderate COVID-19 infected patients admitted in COVID treatment center of Dr Ruth Kum Pafu Civil Hospital Karachi.

16.
Minerva Dental and Oral Science ; 71(4):206-211, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2067530

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Aquick diagnosis is crucial in effectively limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The study aims to assess the prevalence of positive rapid tests in private dental practices. METHOD(S): This is an observational study. 532 COVID-19 rapid nasopharyngeal antigen tests were carried out in the Veneto region of Italy. Patients of 4 dental practices in different cities (Caorle, Montebelluna, Treviso and Vicenza) were screened with a rapid test (Rapid Test COVID-19 Ag immunochromatographic assay, Techno Genetics) throughout November and December 2020. All the positive results from rapid tests were further investigated with a molecular test (PCR). All the patients tested showed no symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and had already undergone triage and temperature measurement. In total 532 tests were taken: 202 in Caorle (Venice), 130 in Montebelluna (Treviso), 100 in Treviso, and 100 in Vicenza. Statistical analysis was carried with the computing environment Rversion 3.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). In particular, R was used for estimating the P value of the x2 test. The test was considered significant if the P value was lower or equal to 0.05. RESULT(S): The prevalence of the rapid tests that resulted positive was 7.14% (38 out of 532 in total, 22 out of 202 in Caorle, 6 out of 130 in Montebelluna, 4 out of 100 in Treviso and 6 out of 100 in Vicenza). Among these patients, 36 tested positive also with a molecular test (94.74%), in particular, 21 in Caorle, 5 in Montebelluna, 4 in Treviso, and 6 in Vicenza. CONCLUSION(S): The prevalence of positive patients screened with a rapid test in private dental practices stands at 7.14% and it was confirmed in most of the patients with molecular tests. Therefore, in high-risk environments like dental practices, it is imperative to follow all the precautionary measures, and having every patient tested with a rapid test could be taken into consideration to limit the spread of COVID-19 infection. Copyright © 2022 Journal of Korean Ophthalmological Society. All rights reserved.

17.
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research ; 16(9):ED01-ED03, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2067193

ABSTRACT

Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) is an inherited disorder with variable clinical presentation and low immunity. Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19)is a pandemic disease with a high-risk in chronic disease patients and older adults. SCD is widely distributed in Sudan;many SCD patients are infected with COVID-19. Despite this, no published data is available. This case report demonstrated the haematological and clinical course of a Sudanese sickle cell anaemia patient with COVID-19. A 20-year-old male patient was admitted to a hospital for 15 days. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from his medical records. A blood sample was taken at the time of admission and during hospitalisation. Tests were performed during admission, including Complete Blood Count (CBC), liver function test, renal function test, coagulation studies, viral screening, and urine general. The patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 using the Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test based on the nasopharyngeal swab and COVID-19 IgG and IgM using Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for the previous infection. The patient received intravenous fluids, antibiotics, analgesia, oxygen supplementation, and blood transfusion two times during hospitalisation, and there was no need for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. The patient's prognosis was good;he was discharged on day 16 with no symptoms and a negative result of the COVID-19 PCR test. A severe illness was expected because he was infected twice by COVID-19, the patient showed mild clinical symptoms with a good prognosis, so further studies are required to understand COVID-19 among Sudanese SCD patients.

18.
Haseki Tip Bulteni ; 60(4):318-324, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2066931

ABSTRACT

Aim: We think that the nasopharyngeal swab sample should be taken bilaterally to improve the sensitivity of the real-time-reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test since there may be pathologies that cause nasal obstruction, such as nasal septum deviation (NSD). In this context, we investigated the effect of the nasopharyngeal swab sampling method and the presence of nasal obstruction on the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Method(s): This prospective clinical study was conducted from March 2021 to January 2022. Forty-four hospitalized patients with NSD were included in the study group, and 44 hospitalized patients without NSD were included in the control group. The results of the RT-PCR test studied with a unilateral nasopharyngeal swab sample taken during hospitalization and the RT-PCR test studied with a bilateral nasopharyngeal swab sample taken on the 2nd day of hospitalization and the visual analog scale (VAS) scores showing the patients' pain during the first sampling were determined. Result(s): In the first test, 23 (52.3%) patients in the study group and 32 (72.7%) patients in the control group were evaluated as SARS-CoV-2 positive. The first test sensitivity was significantly higher in the control group (p=0.048). The VAS score was significantly higher in the study group (p=0.00008). In the second test, 35 (79.5%) patients in the study group and 37 (84.1%) patients in the control group were evaluated as SARS-CoV-2 positive. The sensitivity increases in the study group and in the population were statistically significant (p=0.007 and p=0.004, respectively). The consistency of the first and second test results increased in patients without NSD and in patients with low VAS scores [odds ratio (OR)=3.779;p=0.001, OR=2.572;p=0.005, respectively]. Conclusion(s): Nasopharyngeal swab sampling may be affected by nasal congestion and the sampling method. To avoid this, it may be more appropriate to take a nasopharyngeal swab sample through the bilateral nasal cavity. Copyright © 2022 by The Medical Bulletin of Istanbul Haseki Training and Research Hospital The Medical Bulletin of Haseki published by Galenos Yayinevi.

19.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2065985

ABSTRACT

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt health systems worldwide, conducting Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT) at specified intervals has become an essential part of many people's lives around the world. We identified and analyzed the academic literature on COVID-19 RAT. The Web of Science electronic database was queried on 6 July 2022 to find relevant publications. Publication and citation data were retrieved directly from the database. VOSviewer, a bibliometric software, was then used to relate these data to the semantic content from the titles, abstracts, and keywords. The analysis was based on data from 1000 publications. The most productive authors were from Japan and the United States, led by Dr. Koji Nakamura from Japan (n = 10, 1.0%). The most academically productive countries were in the North America, Europe and Asia, led by the United States of America (n = 266, 26.6%). Sensitivity (n = 32, 3.2%) and specificity (n = 23, 2.3%) were among the most frequently recurring author keywords. Regarding sampling methods, "saliva" (n = 54, 5.4%) was mentioned more frequently than "nasal swab" (n = 32, 3.2%) and "nasopharyngeal swab" (n = 22, 2.2%). Recurring scenarios that required RAT were identified: emergency department, healthcare worker, mass screening, airport, traveler, and workplace. Our bibliometric analysis revealed that COVID-19 RAT has been utilized in a range of studies. RAT results were cross-checked with RT-PCR tests for sensitivity and specificity. These results are consistent with comparable exchanges of methods, results or discussions among laboratorians, authors, institutions and publishers in the involved countries of the world.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Bibliometrics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe , Humans , Pandemics , Sensitivity and Specificity , United States
20.
Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery ; 167(1 Supplement):P15-P16, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2064492

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Anosmia has been described as one of the characteristic symptoms of COVID-19 disease. It is even considered as a key marker for COVID-19 diagnosis. The aim of the study is to evaluate anosmia as prognostic factor in moderate and severe cases of COVID-19 patients. Method(s): Our study is a multicenter prospective study;300 patients were recruited and confirmed COVID-19 infection and admitted into 3 tertiary referral quarantine hospitals to receive medical treatment in Minia, Egypt. The study was conducted between April and October 2021. The selected random sample met the following inclusion criteria: adults older than 18 years, rhinopharyngeal swab positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and moderate and severe cases of COVID-19. The patients were subjected to the following protocol: full clinical history, general medical examination, otorhinolaryngological evaluation, mandatory swab for COVID-19, and recording of laboratory data. Patients underwent olfactory assessment and follow-up for 3 months. Olfactory assessment was done subjectively by odor recognition thresholds using L-butanol;after evaluation, the patients were divided into anosmic and nonanosmic groups. Collected data were compared and statistically analyzed. Result(s): Olfactory impairment was seen in 35% of moderate cases and 13% in severe cases. Our study revealed that patients with anosmia were younger and mostly female. Hospitalized patients with anosmia had a better prognosis. Our results showed no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rate. Of patients with anosmia, 70% were associated with dysgeusia, and 50% recovered within 13 days while 85% recovered within 28 days. There was significant relationship (parallel relationship) between progress of anosmia and level of D-dimer, C-reactive protein, and serum ferritin. This indicateds that the prognosis of anosmia is highly related to the inflammatory process of COVID-19 pathophysiology. Conclusion(s): Anosmic patients with COVID-19 have more favorable prognosis and recovery than nonanosmic patients do, and anosmia improves with treatment of the disease.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL