Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Eur J Clin Invest ; 51(12): e13626, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1273086


BACKGROUND: Fever-7 is a test evaluating host mRNA expression levels of IFI27, JUP, LAX, HK3, TNIP1, GPAA1 and CTSB in blood able to detect viral infections. This test has been validated mostly in hospital settings. Here we have evaluated Fever-7 to identify the presence of respiratory viral infections in a Community Health Center. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in the "Servicio de Urgencias de Atención Primaria" in Salamanca, Spain. Patients with clinical signs of respiratory infection and at least one point in the National Early Warning Score were recruited. Fever-7 mRNAs were profiled on a Nanostring nCounter® SPRINT instrument from blood collected upon patient enrolment. Viral diagnosis was performed on nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) using the Biofire-RP2 panel. RESULTS: A respiratory virus was detected in the NPAs of 66 of the 100 patients enrolled. Median National Early Warning Score was 7 in the group with no virus detected and 6.5 in the group with a respiratory viral infection (P > .05). The Fever-7 score yielded an overall AUC of 0.81 to predict a positive viral syndromic test. The optimal operating point for the Fever-7 score yielded a sensitivity of 82% with a specificity of 71%. Multivariate analysis showed that Fever-7 was a robust marker of viral infection independently of age, sex, major comorbidities and disease severity at presentation (OR [CI95%], 3.73 [2.14-6.51], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Fever-7 is a promising host immune mRNA signature for the early identification of a respiratory viral infection in the community.

RNA, Messenger/blood , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Virus Diseases/diagnosis , Adaptor Proteins, Vesicular Transport/genetics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cathepsin B/genetics , DNA-Binding Proteins/genetics , Early Warning Score , Female , Gene Expression Profiling , Humans , Male , Membrane Glycoproteins/genetics , Membrane Proteins/genetics , Nasopharynx/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/blood , Respiratory Tract Infections/genetics , Transcriptome , Virus Diseases/blood , Virus Diseases/genetics , gamma Catenin/genetics
Ann Intern Med ; 173(7): 542-555, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-612832


BACKGROUND: Recommendations on masks for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary. PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, and effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 14 April 2020; surveillance through 2 June 2020), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of masks and risk for respiratory virus infection, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and observational studies of mask use and coronavirus infection risk were included. New evidence will be incorporated by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; a second reviewer provided verification. DATA SYNTHESIS: 39 studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 21 observational studies; 33 867 participants) were included. No study evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. Evidence on SARS-CoV-2 was limited to 2 observational studies with serious limitations. Community mask use was possibly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection in observational studies. In high- or moderate-risk health care settings, observational studies found that risk for infection with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus probably decreased with mask use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. In health care settings, N95 and surgical masks were probably associated with similar risks for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infection; clinical respiratory illness had inconsistency. Bothersome symptoms were common. LIMITATIONS: There were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods. CONCLUSION: Evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Masks , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Patient Compliance , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2