Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(19): 702-706, 2021 May 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1227229

RESUMEN

Prompt and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been important during public health responses for containing the spread of COVID-19, including in hospital settings (1-3). In vitro diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), such as real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can be expensive, have relatively long turnaround times, and require experienced laboratory personnel.* Antigen detection tests can be rapidly and more easily performed and are less expensive. The performance† of antigen detection tests, compared with that of NAATs, is an area of interest for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Quidel Sofia 2 SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) (Quidel Corporation) received Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for use in symptomatic patients within 5 days of symptom onset (4). The reported test positive percentage agreement§ between this test and an RT-PCR test result is 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.3%-99.4%), and the negative percentage agreement is 100.0% (95% CI = 97.9%-100.0%) in symptomatic patients.¶ However, performance in asymptomatic persons in a university setting has shown lower sensitivity (5); assessment of performance in a clinical setting is ongoing. Data collected during June 30-August 31, 2020, were analyzed to compare antigen test performance with that of RT-PCR in a hospital setting. Among 1,732 paired samples from asymptomatic patients, the antigen test sensitivity was 60.5%, and specificity was 99.5% when compared with RT-PCR. Among 307 symptomatic persons, sensitivity and specificity were 72.1% and 98.7%, respectively. Health care providers must remain aware of the lower sensitivity of this test among asymptomatic and symptomatic persons and consider confirmatory NAAT testing in high-prevalence settings because a false-negative result might lead to failures in infection control and prevention practices and cause delays in diagnosis, isolation, and treatment.


Asunto(s)
Antígenos Virales/análisis , Prueba de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Femenino , Hospitales , Humanos , Los Angeles/epidemiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Adulto Joven
2.
J Agromedicine ; 26(3): 352-359, 2021 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1221280

RESUMEN

Dairy farms that had participated in previous and ongoing projects with the National Farm Medicine Center (NFMC), Migrant Clinicians Network (MCN), and Upper Midwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (UMASH) were asked to participate in a 17-question survey by phone or email to investigate biosecurity principles on Minnesota and Wisconsin dairy farms in response to COVID-19 and the effects of the pandemic on the dairy industry. Three additional farms were recruited via a press release published in agricultural newsletters. Of 76 farms contacted, 37 chose to participate in this study from June to July 2020. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, dairies have implemented or increased biosecurity measures and COVID-19 precautions. Dairies reported adequate personal protective equipment for their workers, though face masks were not required on most dairies (n = 32, 86%). Producers were concerned about the safety of their families, maintaining a healthy workforce, and keeping their farms profitable. Access to healthcare was not perceived to be an issue for their workers. One-quarter of dairies reported COVID-19 infections on their farms. Even though the majority had an isolation protocol in place if someone on the farm were to become ill, less than half of respondents felt their farm was protected against COVID-19. Two-thirds of producers have not had to decrease production, and a majority of operations have not furloughed or terminated employees due to COVID-19. Our data suggest that dairy farms in Minnesota and Wisconsin have implemented biosecurity and safety measures in response to COVID-19. These measures can be improved. Farms would benefit from additional guidance and education on implementation of personal protective measures and disease prevention strategies to keep workers employed and safe.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Industria Lechera , SARS-CoV-2 , Granjas , Humanos , Minnesota , Pandemias , Seguridad , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Migrantes , Wisconsin
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA