COVID-19 Viral Load in the Severity of and Recovery From Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: This study investigated olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in the 2020 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients, and their correlations with viral load evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional cohort study. METHODS: One hundred forty-three symptomatic patients being screened for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were invited to participate. The clinical data of 83 confirmed COVID-19 subjects were collected, with 60 patients who were symptomatic but negative for COVID-19 recruited as controls. The prevalence and severity of and recovery time for olfactory and gustatory dysfunction, and cycle threshold (Ct) values from a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction assay of nasopharyngeal and deep throat swabs were collected. Their correlations with Ct values were reported. RESULTS: Thirty-nine (47.0%) and 36 (43.4%) COVID-19 patients reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction, respectively. The results of one-way analysis of variance did not show statistically significant relationships between the Ct values and severity of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (P = .780 and P = .121, respectively). Among the COVID-19 patients who reported smell and taste loss, 28/39 (71.8%) and 30/36 (83.3%) experienced complete recovery, respectively. The mean recovery time was 10.3 ± 8.1 days for olfactory dysfunction and 9.5 ± 6.8 days for gustatory dysfunction. The recovery time was not correlated with the Ct values (Pearson correlation coefficient, smell: -0.008, P = .968; taste: -0.015, P = .940). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19. However, the severity of and recovery from these symptoms have no correlations with the viral load of SARS-CoV-2. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:2680-2685, 2020.

Stepping up infection control measures in ophthalmology during the novel coronavirus outbreak: an experience from Hong Kong.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has rapidly emerged as a global health threat. The purpose of this article is to share our local experience of stepping up infection control measures in ophthalmology to minimise COVID-19 infection of both healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: Infection control measures implemented in our ophthalmology clinic are discussed. The measures are based on detailed risk assessment by both local ophthalmologists and infection control experts. RESULTS: A three-level hierarchy of control measures was adopted. First, for administrative control, in order to lower patient attendance, text messages with an enquiry phone number were sent to patients to reschedule appointments or arrange drug refill. In order to minimise cross-infection of COVID-19, a triage system was set up to identify patients with fever, respiratory symptoms, acute conjunctivitis or recent travel to outbreak areas and to encourage these individuals to postpone their appointments for at least 14 days. Micro-aerosol generating procedures, such as non-contact tonometry and operations under general anaesthesia were avoided. Nasal endoscopy was avoided as it may provoke sneezing and cause generation of droplets. All elective clinical services were suspended. Infection control training was provided to all clinical staff. Second, for environmental control, to reduce droplet transmission of COVID-19, installation of protective shields on slit lamps, frequent disinfection of equipment, and provision of eye protection to staff were implemented. All staff were advised to measure their own body temperatures before work and promptly report any symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection, vomiting or diarrhoea. Third, universal masking, hand hygiene, and appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) were promoted. CONCLUSION: We hope our initial experience in stepping up infection control measures for COVID-19 infection in ophthalmology can help ophthalmologists globally to prepare for the potential community outbreak or pandemic. In order to minimise transmission of COVID-19, ophthalmologists should work closely with local infection control teams to implement infection control measures that are appropriate for their own clinical settings.

Elizabethkingia anophelis bacteremia is associated with clinically significant infections and high mortality.

Unlike Elizabethkingia meningoseptica, the clinical importance of E. anophelis is poorly understood. We determined the clinical and molecular epidemiology of bacteremia caused by Elizabethkingia-like species from five regional hospitals in Hong Kong. Among 45 episodes of Elizabethkingia-like bacteremia, 21 were caused by Elizabethkingia, including 17 E. anophelis, three E. meningoseptica and one E. miricola; while 24 were caused by other diverse genera/species, as determined by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Of the 17 cases of E. anophelis bacteremia, 15 (88%) were clinically significant. The most common diagnosis was pneumonia (n = 5), followed by catheter-related bacteremia (n = 4), neonatal meningitis (n = 3), nosocomial bacteremia (n = 2) and neutropenic fever (n = 1). E. anophelis bacteremia was commonly associated with complications and carried 23.5% mortality. In contrast, of the 24 episodes of bacteremia due to non-Elizabethkingia species, 16 (67%) were clinically insignificant. Compared to non-Elizabethkingia bacteremia, Elizabethkingia bacteremia was associated with more clinically significant infections (P < 0.01) and positive cultures from other sites (P < 0.01), less polymicrobial bacteremia (P < 0.01), and higher complication (P < 0.05) and mortality (P < 0.05) rates. Elizabethkingia bacteremia is predominantly caused by E. anophelis instead of E. meningoseptica. Elizabethkingia bacteremia, especially due to E. anophelis, carries significant morbidity and mortality, and should be considered clinically significant unless proven otherwise.