Effective Containment of a COVID-19 Subregional Outbreak in Italy Through Strict Quarantine and Rearrangement of Local Health Care Services.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the pandemic, the epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Italy has been characterized by the occurrence of subnational outbreaks. The World Health Organization recommended building the capacity to rapidly control COVID-19 clusters of cases in order to avoid the spread of the disease. This study describes a subregional outbreak of COVID-19 that occurred in the Emilia Romagna region, Italy, and the intervention undertaken to successfully control it. METHODS: Cases of COVID-19 were defined by a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on nasopharyngeal swab. The outbreak involved the residential area of a small town, with ~10 500 inhabitants in an area of 9 km2. After the recognition of the outbreak, local health care authorities implemented strict quarantine and a rearrangement of health care services, consisting of closure of general practitioner outpatient clinics, telephone contact with all residents, activation of health care units to visit at-home patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and a dedicated Infectious Diseases ambulatory unit at the nearest hospital. RESULTS: The outbreak lasted from February 24 to April 6, 2020, involving at least 170 people with a cumulative incidence of 160 cases/10 000 inhabitants; overall, 448 inhabitants of the municipality underwent at least 1 nasopharyngeal swab to detect SARS-CoV-2 (positivity rate, 38%). Ninety-three people presented symptoms before March 11 (pre-intervention period), and 77 presented symptoms during the postintervention period (March 11-April 6). CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to control this COVID-19 outbreak by prompt recognition and implementation of a targeted local intervention.

Design and Multicenter Clinical Validation of a 3-Dimensionally Printed Nasopharyngeal Swab for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

Importance: Three-dimensionally printed nasopharyngeal swabs (3DP swabs) have been used to mitigate swab shortages during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Clinical validation for diagnostic accuracy and consistency, as well as patient acceptability, is crucial to evaluate the swab's performance. Objective: To determine the accuracy and acceptability of the 3DP swab for identifying severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Design, Setting, and Participants: A diagnostic study was conducted from May to July 2020 at 2 tertiary care centers in Singapore with different reference swabs (FLOQSwab [COPAN Diagnostics] or Dacron swab [Deltalab]) and swab processing techniques (wet or dry) to evaluate the performance of the 3DP swab compared with traditional, standard-of-care nasopharyngeal swabs used in health care institutions. The participants were patients with COVID-19 in the first 2 weeks of illness and controls with acute respiratory illness with negative test results for SARS-CoV-2. Paired nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from the same nostril and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. The sequence of swabs was randomized based on odd and even participant numbers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measures were overall agreement (OA), positive percentage agreement (PPA), and negative percentage agreement of the 3DP swab compared with reference swabs. Secondary outcome measures were the correlation of cycle threshold (Ct) values of both swabs. Results: The mean (SD) age of participants was 45.4 (13.1) years, and most participants were men (87 of 89 [97.8%]), in keeping with the epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. A total of 79 patients with COVID-19 and 10 controls were recruited. Among the patients with COVID-19, the overall agreement and PPA of the 3DP swab was 91.1% and 93.5%, respectively, compared with reference swabs. The PPA was 100% for patients with COVID-19 who were tested within the first week of illness. All controls tested negative. The reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction Ct values for the ORF1ab and E-gene targets showed a strong correlation (intraclass correlations coefficient, 0.869-0.920) between the 3DP and reference swab on independent testing at each institution despite differences in sample processing. Discordant results for both gene targets were observed only at high Ct values. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study of 79 patients with COVID-19 and 10 controls, the 3DP swab performed accurately and consistently across health care institutions and could help mitigate strained resources in the escalating COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluation of two automated low-cost RNA extraction protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

BACKGROUND: Two automatable in-house protocols for high-troughput RNA extraction from nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection have been evaluated. METHODS: One hundred forty one SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were collected during a period of 10-days. In-house protocols were based on extraction with magnetic beads and designed to be used with either the Opentrons OT-2 (OT-2in-house) liquid handling robot or the MagMAXTM Express-96 system (MMin-house). Both protocols were tested in parallel with a commercial kit that uses the MagMAXTM system (MMkit). Nucleic acid extraction efficiencies were calculated from a SARS-CoV-2 DNA positive control. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between both in-house protocols and the commercial kit in their performance to detect positive samples. The MMkit was the most efficient although the MMin-house presented, in average, lower Cts than the other two. In-house protocols allowed to save between 350€ and 400€ for every 96 extracted samples compared to the commercial kit. CONCLUSION: The protocols described harness the use of easily available reagents and an open-source liquid handling system and are suitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection in high throughput facilities.

Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Detection With Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

Background: SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects have been proven contagious in the symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic phase. The identification of these patients is crucial in order to prevent virus circulation. No reliable data on the sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are available because of the lack of a shared reference standard to identify SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. The aim of our study was to collect data on patients with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 who underwent serial testing to assess NPS sensitivity. Methods: The study was a multi-center, observational, retrospective clinical study with consecutive enrollment. We enrolled patients who met all of the following inclusion criteria: clinical recovery, documented SARS-CoV-2 infection (≥1 positive rRT-PCR result) and ≥1 positive NPS among the first two follow-up swabs. A positive NPS not preceded by a negative nasopharyngeal swab collected 24-48 h earlier was considered a true positive. A negative NPS followed by a positive NPS collected 24-48 h later was regarded as a false negative. The primary outcome was to define sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection with NPS. Results: Three hundred and ninety three NPS were evaluated in 233 patients; the sensitivity was 77% (95% CI, 73 to 81%). Sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS (n = 233) was 79% (95% CI, 73 to 84%) with no significant variations over time. We found no statistically significant differences in the sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS according to time since symptom onset, age, sex, number of comorbidities, and onset symptoms. Conclusions: NPS utility in the diagnostic algorithm of COVID-19 should be reconsidered.

Quantitative Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Nasopharyngeal Swabs Stored in Transport Medium by a Straightforward LC-MS/MS Assay Targeting Nucleocapsid, Membrane, and Spike Proteins.

Alternative methods to RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection are investigated to provide complementary data on viral proteins, increase the number of tests performed, or identify false positive/negative results. Here, we have developed a simple mass spectrometry assay for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples using common laboratory reagents. The method employs high sensitivity and selectivity targeted mass spectrometry detection, monitoring nine constitutive peptides representative of the three main viral proteins and a straightforward pellet digestion protocol for convenient routine applications. Absolute quantification of N, M, and S proteins was achieved by addition of isotope-labeled versions of best peptides. Limit of detection, recovery, precision, and linearity were thoroughly evaluated in four representative viral transport media (VTM) containing distinct total protein content. The protocol was sensitive in all swab media with limit of detection determined at 2 × 103 pfu/mL, corresponding to as low as 30 pfu injected into the LC-MS/MS system. When tested on VTM-stored nasopharyngeal swab samples from positive and control patients, sensitivity was similar to or better than rapid immunoassay dipsticks, revealing a corresponding RT-PCR detection threshold at Ct ∼ 24. The study represents the first thorough evaluation of sensitivity and robustness of targeted mass spectrometry in nasal swabs, constituting a promising SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for the first-line diagnosis of COVID-19 and compatible with the constraints of clinical settings. The raw files generated in this study can be found on PASSEL (Peptide Atlas) under data set identifier PASS01646.

Performance of Oropharyngeal Swab Testing Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019-United States, January 2020-February 2020.

Among 146 nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab pairs collected ≤7 days after illness onset, Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR) diagnostic results were 95.2% concordant. However, NP swab cycle threshold values were lower (indicating more virus) in 66.7% of concordant-positive pairs, suggesting NP swabs may more accurately detect the amount of SARS-CoV-2.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Covid-19 and acute conjunctivitis: Controversial data from a tertiary refferral Italian center.

PURPOSE: Although acute conjunctivitis has been listed from the beginning as a possible sign of COVID-19, the likelihood of this association remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between COVID-19 and conjunctivitis. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, we recruited all patients with signs and symptoms of acute conjunctivitis seen at the Eye Emergency Department (ED), Turin Eye Hospital, between 01/01/2020 and 12/05/2020 and cross-checked our data with the Piedmont Region online COVID-19 registry in the same period. RESULTS: Among 10,065 patients seen at our ED during the timespan considered, 88 underwent a nasopharyngeal swab (NS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection within 4 weeks before/after our examination. On average, NS was performed -0.72 ± 1.8 weeks before/after eye examination. Of the 77 patients with a negative NS, 26 (33.8%) had a diagnosis of acute conjunctivitis, whereas the remaining 51 (66.2%) had other eye disorders. Among the 11 patients with COVID-19, 7 (63,6%) had a diagnosis of acute conjunctivitis. We found a non-statistically significant increase in NS positivity rate (21.2%) among cases examined at our ED for acute conjunctivitis, compared to the NS positivity rate (7.3%) in patients examined for all other eye conditions (p = 0.092). The Odds Ratio of having a positive NS in patients with acute conjunctivitis was 3.43 (95% I.C. = 0.9-12.8, p = 0.06). Considering online-registry data of Turin population during the same time-span, among 2441 positive NS cases only 27 (1.1%) presented with acute conjunctivitis. CONCLUSION: Our results do not reveal a statistically significant correlation between COVID-19 and acute conjunctivitis. SYNOPSIS: The present study analyzes retrospectively data from a tertiary eye referral center to investigate the relationship between COVID-19 infection and conjunctivitis.

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

In the fight against the recent COVID-19 pandemics, testing is crucial. Nasopharyngeal swabs and real-time RT-PCR are used for the detection of the viral RNA. The collection of saliva is non-invasive, pain-free and does not require trained personnel. An alternative to RT-PCR is loop-mediated isothermal amplification coupled with reverse transcription (RT-LAMP) that is easy to perform, quick and does not require a thermal cycler. The aim of this study was to test whether SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected directly in saliva using RT-LAMP. We have tested 16 primer mixes from the available literature in three rounds of sensitivity assays. The selected RT-LAMP primer mix has a limit of detection of 6 copies of viral RNA per reaction in comparison with RT-PCR with 1 copy per reaction. Whole saliva, as well as saliva collected using Salivette collection tubes, interfered with the RT-LAMP analysis. Neither Chelex-100 nor protease treatment of saliva prevented the inhibitory effect of saliva. With the addition of the ribonuclease inhibitor, the sensitivity of the RT-LAMP assay was 12 copies per reaction of RNA in Salivette® saliva samples and 6 copies per reaction of RNA in whole saliva samples. This study shows that it is possible to combine the use of saliva and RT-LAMP for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection without RNA extraction which was confirmed on a small set of correctly diagnosed clinical samples. Further studies should prove whether this protocol is suitable for point of care testing in the clinical setting.

Saliva Is a Promising Alternative Specimen for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Children and Adults.

Testing efforts for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for health care workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to that of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS was compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordances for saliva and NPS were 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The values for positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS were 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva yielded detection of 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. For symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA, 82.4% versus 85.3%). The overall values for PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva yielding detection of 4 fewer cases than NPS. However, saliva performance for symptomatic adults was identical to NPS performance (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate sample choice alternative to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.

Clinical Diagnostic Study of a Novel Injection Molded Swab for SARS-Cov-2 Testing.

INTRODUCTION: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is currently a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2. This is most commonly performed on respiratory secretions obtained via a nasopharyngeal swab. Due to supply chain limitations and high demand worldwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to commercial nasopharyngeal swabs has not been assured. 3D printing methods have been used to meet the shortfall. For longer-term considerations, 3D printing may not compare well with injection molding as a production method due to the challenging scalability and greater production costs of 3D printing. METHODS: To secure sufficient nasopharyngeal swab availability for our national healthcare system, we designed a novel injection molded nasopharyngeal swab (the IM2 swab). We performed a clinical diagnostic study comparing the IM2 swab to the Copan FLOQSwab. Forty patients with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 and 10 healthy controls were recruited. Paired nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from the same nostril of each participant and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. RESULTS: When compared to the Copan FLOQswab, results from the IM2 swab displayed excellent overall agreement and positive percent agreement of 96.0% and 94.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference in mean RT-PCR cycle threshold values for the ORF1ab (28.05 vs. 28.03, p = 0.97) and E-gene (29.72 vs. 29.37, p = 0.64) targets, respectively. We did not observe any significant adverse events and there was no significant difference in patient-reported pain. CONCLUSION: In summary, the IM2 nasopharyngeal swab is a clinically safe, highly accurate option to commercial nasopharyngeal swabs.

Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in children: accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab compared to nasopharyngeal aspirate.

The tests currently used for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 include specimens taken from the upper and lower respiratory tract. Although recommendations from the World Health Organization prioritise the usage of a nasopharyngeal swab (NS), nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA) are thought to be superior in identifying SARS-CoV-2 in children. To our knowledge, however, no paediatric study has been published on the subject. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performances of NS referred to NPA for SARS-CoV-2 in children. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the NS referred to the NPA of the whole sample and considered both age and collection period as covariates in different analyses. We collected 300 paired samples. The NS had a specificity of 97.7% and a sensitivity of 58.1%. We found similar results for the group of subjects ≥ 6 years old, while for subjects < 6 years old, the sensitivity was 66.7% and the specificity 97.8%. Considering period as a covariate, the sensitivity and specificity for patients hospitalised in March (31 patients, 52 records) were 70.0% and 97.6%, while for patients involved in the follow-up (16 patients, 57 records), they were 57.2% and 89.7%. The NS has a low sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in children when referred to the NPA, whereas its specificity is high. Our results suggest that in children under 6 years of age, NSs should be preferred whenever possible. Though statistically not significant, the sensitivity of the NS rises when performed before the NPA.

Case Report: Dengue and COVID-19 Coinfection in Thailand.

We report a 50-year-old Thai woman with recent travel to Denmark who presented with acute high-grade fever, vomiting, and myalgia for 1 day. Initial laboratory results revealed leukopenia, elevated aspartate transaminase, and elevated alanine transaminase. Chest radiograph showed no pulmonary infiltration. Reverse transcriptase-PCR (RT-PCR) of the nasopharyngeal swab detected SARS-CoV-2, and RT-PCR of the blood detected dengue virus serotype 2. COVID-19 with dengue fever co-infection was diagnosed. Her symptoms were improved with supportive treatment. Integration of clinical manifestations, history of exposure, laboratory profiles, and dynamic of disease progression assisted the physicians in precise diagnosis. Co-circulating and nonspecific presentations of dengue infection and COVID-19 challenge the healthcare system in tropical countries. To solve this threat, multi-sector strategies are required, including public health policy, development of accurate point-of-care testing, and proper prevention for both diseases.

Sensitivity of midturbinate versus nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

To compare sensitivity of specimens for COVID-19 diagnosis, we tested 151 nasopharyngeal/midturbinate swab pairs from 117 COVID-19 inpatients using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Sensitivity was 94% for nasopharyngeal and 75% for midturbinate swabs (P = .0001). In 88 nasopharyngeal/midturbinate pairs with matched saliva, sensitivity was 86% for nasopharyngeal swabs and 88% for combined midturbinate swabs/saliva.

Practical challenges to the clinical implementation of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Due to global shortages of flocked nasopharyngeal swabs and appropriate viral transport media during the COVID-19 pandemic, alternate diagnostic specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection are sought. The accuracy and feasibility of saliva samples collected and transported without specialized collection devices or media were evaluated. Saliva demonstrated good concordance with paired nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in 67/74 cases (90.5%), though barriers to saliva collection were observed in long-term care residents and outbreak settings. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was stable in human saliva at room temperature for up to 48 h after initial specimen collection, informing appropriate transport time and conditions.

Central retinal vein occlusion in a young healthy COVID-19 patient: A case report.

PURPOSE: We detail a unique case of a healthy 33-year-old suspected COVID-19 patient who presented with unilateral Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, possibly as a complication of COVID-19. OBSERVATIONS: A 33-year-old healthy male was referred to the emergency department due to blurred vision in his left eye for the past month, accompanied by flashes of light without any accompanying neurological symptoms. The patient reported a three-week period of fatigue, dry cough, and shortness of breath ended about 2 weeks prior to the ocular symptoms. He was not tested for COVID-19 at the time of his respiratory complaints.The clinical examination and the ancillary tests confirmed the diagnosis of a left eye Central Retinal Vein Occlusion.During admission, a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal swab was performed and was found to be negative, however, an IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Inzek International Trading, the Netherlands) was performed and was found to be IgM negative and IgG Positive for SARS-CoV-2, confirming recovery from COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: To the best of our knowledge this is the first report of CRVO in association with COVID-19.As the literature on human ocular manifestations of COVID-19 is still sparse, our case emphasizes the need for further investigation of ocular complication associated with this novel disease.

Saliva is a promising alternative specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.

Testing efforts for SARS-CoV-2 have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for healthcare workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS were compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordance for saliva and NPS was 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS was 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva detected 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. In symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA: 82.4% vs 85.3%). The overall PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva detecting 4 cases less than NPS. However, saliva performance in symptomatic adults was identical to NPS (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate alternative sample choice to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults. SUMMARY: Saliva is an acceptable alternative specimen compared to nasopharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, saliva demonstrated comparable performance to nasopharyngeal swabs in symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients and in symptomatic adults.

Resolution of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection and Pulmonary Pathology With Nebulized DAS181: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections commonly lead to respiratory failure and potentially fatal systemic inflammation and organ failure. Nebulized DAS181, a host-directed biologics with sialidase activity, is an investigational drug with antiviral activities on parainfluenza and influenza under phase 3 and phase 2 development. The objective of this study (NCT04324489) is to investigate the safety and effects of nebulized DAS181 on hypoxic coronavirus disease 2019 patients. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, open-label, compassionate use. SETTING: Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Department of Infectious Diseases. SUBJECTS: Patients 18 to 70 years old who met Chinese criteria for severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia and required supplemental oxygen but not on mechanical ventilator at screening. INTERVENTIONS: Nebulized DAS181 (4.5 mg) twice a day for 10 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three male coronavirus disease 2019 hypoxic patients with bilateral lung involvement completed DAS181 treatment for 10 days. By day 14, all achieved return to room air (primary endpoint) and their nasopharyngeal swabs were negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Clinical severity improved from severe coronavirus disease 2019 at baseline to moderate or mild disease by day 5, consistent with rapid reduction of inflammatory cytokines by days 2-3 and radiologic improvement by days 5-10. No DAS181-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalation of DAS181 was well tolerated and potential clinical benefit of DAS181 on hypoxic coronavirus disease 2019 is the reduction of supplemental oxygen need. Efficacy and safety, including pharmacokinetics and viral studies of DAS181 in severe, hypoxic coronavirus disease 2019, should be examined by a double-blind, randomized controlled study.

COVID-19 in a Correctional Facility Employee Following Multiple Brief Exposures to Persons with COVID-19 - Vermont, July-August 2020.

On August 11, 2020, a confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a male correctional facility employee (correctional officer) aged 20 years was reported to the Vermont Department of Health (VDH). On July 28, the correctional officer had multiple brief encounters with six incarcerated or detained persons (IDPs)* while their SARS-CoV-2 test results were pending. The six asymptomatic IDPs arrived from an out-of-state correctional facility on July 28 and were housed in a quarantine unit. In accordance with Vermont Department of Corrections (VDOC) policy for state prisons, nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the six IDPs on their arrival date and tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at the Vermont Department of Health Laboratory, using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). On July 29, all six IDPs received positive test results. VDH and VDOC conducted a contact tracing investigation† and used video surveillance footage to determine that the correctional officer did not meet VDH's definition of close contact (i.e., being within 6 feet of infectious persons for ≥15 consecutive minutes)§,¶; therefore, he continued to work. At the end of his shift on August 4, he experienced loss of smell and taste, myalgia, runny nose, cough, shortness of breath, headache, loss of appetite, and gastrointestinal symptoms; beginning August 5, he stayed home from work. An August 5 nasopharyngeal specimen tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR at a commercial laboratory was reported as positive on August 11; the correctional officer identified two contacts outside of work, neither of whom developed COVID-19. On July 28, seven days preceding his illness onset, the correctional officer had multiple brief exposures to six IDPs who later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; available data suggests that at least one of the asymptomatic IDPs transmitted SARS-CoV-2 during these brief encounters.