Absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Peritoneal Fluid During Surgery in Pregnant Women Who Are COVID-19 Positive.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection poses significant risks during surgical interventions. We investigated the intraperitoneal presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients who are COVID-19 positive. DESIGN: A prospective group study. SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology designated for patients with COVID-19, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior, Warsaw. PATIENTS: Overall, 65 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection underwent cesarian section. The diagnosis was confirmed either by positive antigen test or by positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay performed within no more than 13 days before the operation. INTERVENTIONS: On the day of the operation, a nasopharyngeal swab was taken, and peritoneal fluid was collected at the beginning of the operation. Both the nasopharyngeal swab and peritoneal fluid samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 65 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection were enrolled in the study. The SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid test by nasopharyngeal swab produced positive results in 34 patients. In this group as well as in 31 nonconfirmed patients, all peritoneal fluid samples tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a low risk of COVID-19 transmission from the peritoneal cavity at the time of laparoscopy or laparotomy.

A novel strategy for SARS-CoV-2 mass screening with quantitative antigen testing of saliva: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection requires medical personnel and is time consuming, and thus is poorly suited to mass screening. In June, 2020, a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA; Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag kit, Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan) was developed that can detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleoproteins in NPS or saliva samples within 35 min. In this study, we assessed the utility of CLEIA in mass SARS-CoV-2 screening. METHODS: We did a diagnostic accuracy study to develop a mass-screening strategy for salivary detection of SARS-CoV-2 by CLEIA, enrolling hospitalised patients with clinically confirmed COVID-19, close contacts identified at community health centres, and asymptomatic international arrivals at two airports, all based in Japan. All test participants were enrolled consecutively. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CLEIA compared with RT-qPCR, estimated according to concordance (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W), and sensitivity (probability of CLEIA positivity given RT-qPCR positivity) and specificity (probability of CLEIA negativity given RT-qPCR negativity) for different antigen concentration cutoffs (0·19 pg/mL, 0·67 pg/mL, and 4·00 pg/mL; with samples considered positive if the antigen concentration was equal to or more than the cutoff and negative if it was less than the cutoff). We also assessed a two-step testing strategy post hoc with CLEIA as an initial test, using separate antigen cutoff values for test negativity and positivity from the predefined cutoff values. The proportion of intermediate results requiring secondary RT-qPCR was then quantified assuming prevalence values of RT-qPCR positivity in the overall tested population of 10%, 30%, and 50%. FINDINGS: Self-collected saliva was obtained from 2056 participants between June 12 and Aug 6, 2020. Results of CLEIA and RT-qPCR were concordant in 2020 (98·2%) samples (Kendall's W=0·99). Test sensitivity was 85·4% (76 of 89 positive samples; 90% credible interval [CrI] 78·0-90·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL; 76·4% (68 of 89; 68·2-82·8) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL; and 52·8% (47 of 89; 44·1-61·3) at the cutoff of 4·0 pg/mL. Test specificity was 91·3% (1796 of 1967 negative samples; 90% CrI 90·2-92·3) at the cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL, 99·2% (1952 of 1967; 98·8-99·5) at the cutoff of 0·67 pg/mL, and 100·0% (1967 of 1967; 99·8-100·0) at the cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL. Using a two-step testing strategy with a CLEIA negativity cutoff of 0·19 pg/mL (to maximise sensitivity) and a CLEIA positivity cutoff of 4·00 pg/mL (to maximise specificity), the proportions of indeterminate results (ie, samples requiring secondary RT-qPCR) would be approximately 11% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 10%, 16% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 30%, and 21% assuming a prevalence of RT-qPCR positivity of 50%. INTERPRETATION: CLEIA testing of self-collected saliva is simple and provides results quickly, and is thus suitable for mass testing. To improve accuracy, we propose a two-step screening strategy with an initial CLEIA test followed by confirmatory RT-qPCR for intermediate concentrations, varying positive and negative thresholds depending on local prevalence. Implementation of this strategy has expedited sample processing at Japanese airports since July, 2020, and might apply to other large-scale mass screening initiatives. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.

A Multiplex One-Step RT-qPCR Protocol to Detect SARS-CoV-2 in NP/OP Swabs and Saliva.

Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has spread extensively throughout the world, with more than 117 million reported cases and 2.6 million deaths (Johns Hopkins coronavirus resource center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html). Detecting the virus is the first step in diagnosing the infection, followed by quarantine to prevent transmission. Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs (NP/OP) and saliva are two specimen types that are most often analyzed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by molecular tests that detect viral RNA or by antigen/antibody tests that detect viral proteins and/or the host immune response against the virus. Compared to antigen/antibody tests, molecular tests are highly sensitive and specific for detecting the virus. A significant drawback is that specimen collection requirements are specific to each test and cannot be interchanged with another test. Some tests are qualified to be used on NP swabs or saliva, but not both specimen types. Even with NP swabs, a test may be qualified to detect the virus only with swabs collected in viral transport medium (VTM) but not in other media. These restrictive pre-analytic steps are disadvantageous in that a lab would have to develop and validate different tests for SARS-CoV-2 depending on the specimen type and collection media, with added setup cost, infrastructure, and training requirements. To overcome these problems, we developed and validated a cost-effective multiplex reverse-transcription real-time PCR assay that can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in different specimen types. The assay is highly sensitive and specific, can be used to detect the virus in saliva as well as NP swabs collected in different media such as VTM, saline, and commercial preservative fluid, and serves as one test for all applications. The protocol also describes an optimal laboratory setup and unidirectional workflow for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. © 2021 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Manual viral nucleic acid extraction from NP/OP swabs collected in different media, and from saliva Alternate Protocol 1: Low-throughput automated extraction on the Qiagen EZ1 Advanced XL machine (1-14 samples) Alternate Protocol 2: High-throughput automated extraction on the Kingfisher Flex machine (1-96 samples) Basic Protocol 2: Multiplex RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 Alternate Protocol 3: Multiplex one-step RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 with S and E gene probes labeled with the same fluorochrome.

Post-infection depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms: A prospective cohort study in patients with mild COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether COVID-19 is associated with psychiatric symptoms during or after the acute illness phase. Being affected by the disease exposes the individual to an uncertain prognosis and a state of quarantine. These factors can predispose individuals to the development of mental symptoms during or after the acute phase of the disease. There is a need for prospective studies assessing psychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 patients in the post-infection period. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 tests were collected at patients' homes under the supervision of trained healthcare personnel. Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were classified as mild cases (N = 895) at treatment intake were further assessed for the presence of psychiatric symptoms (on average, 56.6 days after the intake). We investigated the association between the number of COVID-19 symptoms at intake and depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic symptoms approximately two months later, adjusting for previous mental health status, time between baseline and outcome, and other confounders. Multivariate logistic regression and generalized linear models were employed for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: A clinically significant level of depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms were reported by 26.2% (N = 235), 22.4% (N = 201), and 17.3% (N = 155) of the sample. Reporting an increased number of COVID-related symptoms was associated with the presence of clinically significant levels of depressive (aOR = 1.059;95%CI = 1.002-1.119), anxiety (aOR = 1.072;95%CI = 1.012-1.134), and post-traumatic stress (aOR = 1.092;95%CI = 1.024-1.166) symptoms. Sensitivity analyses supported findings for both continuous and categorical measures. CONCLUSION: Exposure to an increased number of COVID-19 symptoms may be associated with depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic symptoms after the acute phase of the disease. These patients should be monitored for the development of psychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 treatment discharge. Early interventions, such as brief interventions of psychoeducation on coping strategies, could benefit these individuals.

Assessment of Oropharyngeal Specimens for Discontinuation of Transmission-Based COVID-19 Precautions.

We compared oropharyngeal swab test performance with nasopharyngeal testing for discontinuation of transmission-based COVID-19 precautions. We performed a retrospective review of confirmed COVID-19-positive patients who received paired nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 tests for clearance from isolation from May 4, 2020, to May 26, 2020. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the reference standard, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of oropharyngeal swabs. We also calculated the kappa between the 2 tests. A total of 189 paired samples were collected from 74 patients. Oropharyngeal swab sensitivity was 38%, specificity was 87%, and negative predictive value was 70%. The kappa was 0.25. Our study suggests that oropharyngeal swabs are inferior to nasopharyngeal swabs for test-based clearance from COVID-19 isolation.

Nosocomial outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a haematological unit - High mortality rate in infected patients with haematologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Here we report nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 among patients in a haematological unit. To our knowledge this is the first report from Central Europe comparing morbidity and mortality in infected and non-infected patients after exposure to SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The outbreak involved 39 individuals: 19 patients and 20 health care workers. The SARS-CoV-2 test by nasopharyngeal swabs was performed by real-time RT-PCR. Exposed patients were divided into two groups: quarantine patients with and without COVID-19. All patients were prospectively examined at the following time points: 0, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days after confirmation or exclusion of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Infection was confirmed in a total of 5/20 health care workers and 10/19 patients. Among the patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mortality rate was 36.8 %. The probability of death in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 increased 8-fold (p = 0.03). Bacterial, fungal, and viral co-infection significantly decreased survival in these patients (p < 0.05). Additionally, the probability of death was much higher in patients older than 40 years of age (p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study showed significantly higher mortality rate in COVID-19 patients with haematologic diseases compared to the non-infected patient group. Haematologic patients with COVID-19 have 50 % less chance of survival.

[Analysis on the efficacy and safety of fibrinolytic therapy in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 epidemic].

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fibrinolysis strategy in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the COVID-19 epidemic, and to provide reference value for optimization of fibrinolytic process on the premise of prevention and control of COVID-19 transmission, including self-protection of medical staff. Methods: The efficacy and safety of fibrinolysis were retrospectively analyzed in 7 patients with acute STEM, who hospitalized from February 29, 2020 to April 3, 2020 in the Department of Cardiology, Wuhan Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. To optimize the fibrinolytic process on the premise of prevention and control of COVID-19 transmission, including self-protection of medical staff, a full-time medical team in charge of fibrinolysis under third-grade protection was established. The acute STEMI patients were treated immediately in a fixed and isolated area in emergency department before receiving green channel fibrinolysis. Blood samples for complete blood count, COVID-19 antibody test and nasopharyngeal swab samples for COVID-19 nucleic acid test were made before fibrinolysis, while the chest CT examination was accomplished after fibrinolysis. By comparing differences of time from the first electrocardiogram (ECG) to fibrinolysis before and after the improvement of fibrinolytic process, the effect of optimization of the fibrinolytic process was evaluated. Results: In the present study, seven patients with acute STEMI received fibrinolysis therapy, 6 of them achieved reperfusion and no bleeding was observed in all of the patients. Five out of the 7 patients were hospitalized after fibrinolysis, and the hospitalization days were 19.6 days on average. By following up to April 14, 2020, none of the 7 patients died. The first 2 patients were treated according to the routine medical procedure and the time from the first ECG to fibrinolysis were 201 and 106 minutes, respectively. After the optimization of the fibrinolytic process, the time from the first ECG to fibrinolysis of the last 5 patients were 42, 46, 51, 43 and 54 minutes, respectively，which was significantly shorter than that before optimization. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 epidemic, fibrinolysis in patients with acute STEMI is safe, effective and easy to implement. Therefore, it is recommended as the top priority for the patients with acute STEMI with indications for fibrinolysis. On the premise of prevention and control of COVID-19 transmission, including self-protection of medical staff, the duration of myocardial ischemia can be shortened by optimization of the fibrinolytic process.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples by the Roche cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 test and a laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR test.

The urgent need to implement and rapidly expand testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has led to the development of multiple assays. How these tests perform relative to one another is poorly understood. We evaluated the concordance between the Roche Diagnostics cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 test and a laboratory-developed test (LDT) real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction based on a modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocol, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in samples submitted to the Clinical Laboratories of the Mount Sinai Health System. A total of 1006 nasopharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium from persons under investigation were tested for SARS-CoV-2 as part of routine clinical care using the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test with subsequent evaluation by the LDT. Cycle threshold values were analyzed and interpreted as either positive ("detected" or "presumptive positive"), negative (not detected), inconclusive, or invalid. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8. The cobas SARS-CoV-2 test reported 706 positive and 300 negative results. The LDT reported 640 positive, 323 negative, 34 inconclusive, and 9 invalid results. When excluding inconclusive and invalid results, the overall percent agreement between the two platforms was 95.8%. Cohen's κ coefficient was 0.904 (95% confidence interval, 0.875-0.933), suggesting almost perfect agreement between both platforms. An overall discordance rate of 4.2% between the two systems may reflect differences in primer sequences, assay limit of detection, or other factors, highlighting the importance of comparing the performance of different testing platforms.