Coronavirus Disease 2019 Antibody Tests Research Articles

A case of granulomatosis of polyangiitis presenting with COVID-19 infection: False-positivity or co-existence?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic and a public health emergency worldwide in March 2020.
 COVID-19 presents with non-specific symptoms of the upper airway and pulmonary system, which can overlap with other diseases
 involving the respiratory system as granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Both diseases have high morbidity and mortality rates
 and it is important to promptly differentiate and treat them. Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)
 is currently the recommended method for diagnosing COVID-19. Antibody-based tests are used to diagnose both pat and current
 COVID-19 infections.
 We present a previously healthy thirteen-year-old girl who was admitted with upper airway symptoms and pulmonary involvement,
 and progressed to acute kidney failure. Laboratory findings showed leukocytosis, anemia, elevated kidney function tests and 2+
 proteinuria. Computed tomography (CT) of the lungs showed multiple nodules, cavities, and ground-glass opacities (GGOs). We
 performed RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 for three times. Results were all negative, but the COVID-19 immunoglobulin (Ig)M test
 sent simultaneously was positive. Based on the cytoplasmic antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody (c-ANCA) positivity, upper airway,
 pulmonary, and renal involvement, she was diagnosed as GPA.
 This report highlights that COVID-19 antibody tests can be false-positive in patients with autoimmune diseases including GPA.

Long COVID and risk of erectile dysfunction in recovered patients from mild to moderate COVID-19

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were shown to have reduced serum testosterone levels compared to healthy individuals. Low testosterone levels are linked with the development of erectile dysfunction (ED). In this case-controlled study, 20 healthy controls and 39 patients with ED 3 months after recovering from mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia were studied. The patients ranged in age from 31 to 47 years. To identify early and late COVID-19 infections, real-time polymerase-chain reaction (RT-PCR) and COVID-19 antibody testing were done. The levels of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicular stimulating hormone (FSH), total testosterone (TT), free testosterone (FT), free androgenic index (FAI), and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) were measured. The sexual health inventory for patients (SHIM) score was used to measure the erectile function of the patients and controls. When compared to the controls, the TT serum level in long COVID-19 (LC) patients with ED was low (p = 0.01). In contrast to controls, FT and FAI were both lower in LC patients with ED. (p = 0.001). FSH serum levels did not significantly differ (p = 0.07), but in ED patients, LH serum levels were elevated. SHIM scores were associated with low TT (p = 0.30), FT (p = 0.09), and high LH (p = 0.76) in LC patients with ED. Male patients with decreased serum levels of LH and testosterone may have hypothalamic-pituitary–gonadal axis dysfunction, which could lead to the development of LC-induced ED. Therefore, an in-depth research is necessary to confirm the causal link between COVID-19 and ED in LC patients.

Reactivation of Tuberculosis and COVID-19 in Pediatric Patients

Abstract Objective Mycobacterium tuberculosis is an immobile aerobic bacillus that causes tuberculosis (TB) disease. We aimed to evaluate the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), COVID-19-related drugs, TB reactivation, and TB incidence during the pandemic. Methods Eight patients who were diagnosed as having TB in Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, at the beginning of the pandemic, were enrolled in this study. The presence of COVID-19 infection was confirmed using COVID-19 antibody tests and the patients' COVID-19 history. We evaluated the demographic data, laboratory findings, imaging tests, and pathology results of all patients. Results We checked all our patients with TB using COVID-19 antibodies (immunoglobulin [Ig]G + IgM) or polymerase chain reaction. Seven of the eight patients were female (87.5%). The median age was 16 years. Family screening of all patients was negative, and they had bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine scars. Two patients had chronic diseases. One was diagnosed as having primary ciliary dyskinesia in our department (patient no. 8) and the second was under follow-up by the rheumatology department with a diagnosis of juvenile idiopathic rheumatoid arthritis. Conclusion There has been an increase in the incidence of TB in children, especially in adolescents, during the pandemic period. This may be due to the pathogenic structure of the COVID-19 virus with an unknown mechanism. In addition, lifestyle changes and changes in health care policies during the pandemic may have caused this. Further research should be performed on this topic.

A Brief Questionnaire on Healthcare Workers’ Awareness Toward the COVID-19 Vaccine and Antibody Tests

In 2022, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread worldwide with the emergence of many variants. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are encouraged to be vaccinated against COVID-19 because vaccines provide powerful protection from serious illnesses, hospitalization, and death. However, breakthrough infections on vaccinees have been frequently reported, and more studies are required to understand the mechanism of breakthrough infection and establish a standard neutralizing antibody (NTAb) level with efficacy. In particular, it is important to develop useful research tools for HCWs at high risk of breakthrough infection. Here, we administered a brief questionnaire on awareness of COVID-19 vaccines and antibody tests to uncover the needs of HCWs. Our questionnaire showed that HCWs felt a lower priority for vaccines among infection control measures than non-HCWs. On the other hand, HCWs expected more strongly the vaccine to be effective in preventing infection at work than non-HCWs. About half of the respondents, whether HCWs or not, thought that there was a correlation between the severity of adverse reactions and the degree of antibody induction. About 20% of the respondents had a change in awareness of the correlation after an antibody survey. Many respondents believed that the antibody test would be useful. Therefore, we should contribute to the development of a method of evaluating vaccines that can protect against infection and to improving other infection control measures in the future.

Usefulness of High-Resolution Computed Tomography in Early Diagnosis of Patients with Suspected COVID-19.

Diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mainly based on molecular testing. General population studies have shown that chest Computed Tomography (CT) can also be useful. The study aims to examine the usefulness of high-resolution chest CT for early diagnosis of patients with suspected COVID-19. This is a cross-sectional study from May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021, at the COVID Hospital, Mexico City. This study examined the clinical, high-resolution chest CT imaging, and laboratory data of 160 patients who were suspected to have COVID-19. Patients with positive Reverse Transcription- Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing and those with negative RT-PCR testing but clinical data compatible with COVID-19 and positive antibody testing were considered to have COVID-19 (positive). Sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosis of COVID-19 were calculated. p < 0.05 was considered significant. Median age of 160 study patients was 58 years. The proportion of patients with groundglass pattern was significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 than in those without COVID (65.1% versus 0%; P = 0.005). COVID-19 was ruled out in sixteen (11.1%). Only four of the 132 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (3.0%) did not show CT alterations (p < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of CT for COVID-19 diagnosis were 96.7% and 42.8%, respectively. Chest CT can identify patients with COVID-19, as characteristic disease patterns are observed on CT in the early disease stage.

Comparison of a Blood Self-Collection System with Routine Phlebotomy for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced researchers to reconsider in-person assessments due to transmission risk. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of using the Tasso-SST (Tasso, Inc, Seattle, Washington) device for blood self-collection for use in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in an ongoing COVID-19 prevalence and immunity research study. 100 participants were recruited between January and March 2021 from a previously identified sub-cohort of the Cabarrus County COVID-19 Prevalence and Immunity (C3PI) Study who were under-going bimonthly COVID-19 antibody testing. Participants were given a Tasso-SST kit and asked to self-collect blood during a scheduled visit where trained laboratory personnel performed routine phlebotomy. All participants completed an after-visit survey about their experience. Overall, 70.0% of participants were able to collect an adequate sample for testing using the device. Among those with an adequate sample, there was a high concordance in results between the Tasso-SST and phlebotomy blood collection methods (Cohen’s kappa coefficient = 0.88, Interclass correlation coefficient 0.98 [0.97, 0.99], p < 0.0001). The device received a high-level (90.0%) of acceptance among all participants. Overall, the Tasso-SST could prove to be a valuable tool for seroprevalence testing. However, future studies in larger, diverse populations over longer periods may provide a better understanding of device usability and acceptance among older participants and those with comorbidities in various use scenarios.

MO699: Investigating Longer Term Antibody Response Following Covid-19 Vaccination in Patients Receiving Peritoneal Dialysis—a Single-Center Observational Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMSIndividuals with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have a greater susceptibility towards coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection compared to those without chronic kidney disease or ESKD, and these patients are more vulnerable to poor clinical outcomes. The introduction of COVID-19 vaccination programs displayed efficacy to improving clinical outcomes. A study based in the UK reported excellent humoral responses to the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine, but suboptimal responses to the Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-nCoV-19(AZD1222) vaccine amongst hemodialysis patients. High rate of humoral responses to two doses of the COVID-19 vaccination has been reported within small cohorts of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients 3 to 8 weeks post vaccination, whilst one study confirmed maintenance of significant humoral responses 6 months post vaccination with the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine. Our study aimed at evaluating longer-term antibody responses—6 months after a two-dose regimen of the Pfizer BNT162b2 and Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccines in patients receiving PD.METHODThis is a single-center observational study conducted for PD patients who were offered both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine [either Pfizer BNT162b2 or Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-nCoV-19(AZD1222)] since universal introduction of the vaccination program in our local area in December 2020. COVID-19 antibody testing was performed using the Siemens’ immunoassay targeting the spike protein S1 RBD (an index ≥ 1.0 was deemed as a positive result) between October and November 2021. Demographic and baseline clinical data were collected for each patient, and analysis focused on comparing the characteristics between PD patients with positive and negative COVID-19 antibody statuses. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24.RESULTSEighty-six patients were included in this study. The median age was 62 years (47–71) with a predominance of males (61.6%) and Caucasian ethnicity (75.6%). The majority of patients have hypertension (84.8%) with 38% having a history of cardiovascular disease and 34% being diabetic. Ten patients (11.6%) previously received a kidney transplant with 7 patients (8.2%) currently on immunosuppressive treatment, and 15 patients (17.4%) previously receiving such treatments. A total of 81 patients received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, of which 57 (70.4%) received Pfizer BNT162b2, 16 (19.7%) received Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 (AZD1222) and the type of vaccine was unknown in 8 patients (9.9%). A total of 72 patients were COVID-19 antibody tested between October and November 2021 in which 68 (94.4%) had a positive antibody and 4 (5.6%) had a negative antibody test. The median time between first dose of the COVID-19 vaccination and antibody testing was 9 (8.6–9.5) months and the median time between second dose of the COVID-19 vaccination and antibody testing was 6.3 (5.8–6.7) months. Comparing the demographic and clinical characteristics between patients with positive and negative antibodies, a higher proportion of patients with history of receiving immunosuppression (currently or previously; P = 0.004) had a negative antibody status despite receiving two doses of COVID-19 vaccination. There were no further significant differences observed. Full study results are presented in Tables 1 and 2.CONCLUSIONIn our cohort of PD patients, detectable humoral response to COVID-19 vaccination was sustained 6 months following vaccination irrespective of the type of vaccination received. A higher proportion of patients with a history of receiving immunosuppression (current or past) had a poor antibody response following COVID-19 vaccinations, highlighting the importance of considering focused COVID-19 vaccination strategies in the context of immunosuppression.

COVID-19 Antibody Tests: An Overview.

Novel coronavirus (nCoV) first emerged in Hubei province of China in December 2019. The virus initially known as 2019-nCoV was renamed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The associated disease is known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded, interest has grown in antibody testing as a way to measure how far the infection has spread and to identify individuals who may be immune. Molecular diagnostic tests like polymerase chain reaction are developed rapidly, however they are not able to fulfill all the requirements of an epidemic reaction. Hence, to complement molecular diagnostic tests, serology tests emerged as a vital aspect of the overall response by confirming the presence of antibodies during the early stage of the infection. Antibody tests help in assessing herd immunity, data about the ongoing phase of infection, identifying potential donors for convalescent plasma therapy, etc. This review currently focuses on giving an overview about the antibody tests in SARS-CoV-2 infections.

COVID Re-Infection or Something Else? A Case Report

<strong>Introduction:</strong> Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected over 100 million people so far globally with few cases of reinfection reported [1, 2]. Most people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop antibodies after resolution of acute infection, however the exact duration of these antibodies and the extent to which it may indicate a protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans is unknown [2, 3]. We report an unusual case of probable asymptomatic reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 while still having antibodies present. <strong>Case Presentation:</strong> A 39-year-old healthy female healthcare professional in New York City had severe myalgia, generalized body weakness, cough, and subjective fever (maximum axillary temperature 99.8F) in March of 2020. The patient was not tested for COVID-19 initially because there was no documentation of fever ≥100F and restriction of testing due to limited availability. Conservative management with analgesics and hydration was done and symptoms subsided after 7 days. One week later (April 2020), multiple family members became sick with COVID-like symptoms and tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Patient was then screened with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (Roche Cobas 6800) due to close household contact and was positive. Routine COVID-19 antibody testing (Roche Cobas Elecsys) offered to hospital staff on a voluntary basis a month later and again 4 months later (September 2020) during annual employee health screening were both positive. In January 2021, the patient was tested due to mandatory return-to-work screening after out-of-state travel and was found to be positive by both PCR and antibody (<em><strong>Table 1</strong></em>). At that time, patient was completely asymptomatic but was required to quarantine. Six days later, she repeated both tests in an urgent care facility at which time SARSCoV-2 RNA PCR (Roche Cobas) was negative while the IgG antibodies (Abbott Alinity i) remained positive. A respiratory viral panel for SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR and influenza A and B (Roche Cobas) done three weeks later as part of the prerequisites for clinical rotation in a different hospital was also negative. <strong>Conclusion:</strong>The asymptomatic index case had antibodies at the time she re-tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 10 months after first testing positive. This may be a case of re-infection in which the presence of antibodies kept the patient symptom-free. Less likely, she may have been carrying viral particles in her nose for 10 months as there was no documented negative test in the interim. There are no published reports of such prolonged carriage of virus [4]. Furthermore, prolonged detection of viral particles does not translate to infectivity [4, 5]. The repeat positive test could also have been a false positive. Polymerase chain reaction cycle thresholds may prove helpful to clinicians to determine the significance of a positive PCR test.

Novel coronavirus seropositivity and related factors among healthcare workers at a university hospital during the prevaccination period: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the specific risk factors for the transmission of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare workers in different campuses of a university hospital and to reveal the risk factors for antibody positivity.MethodsIn this retrospective cross-sectional study, 2988 (82%) of 3620 healthcare workers in a university hospital participated. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antibody was investigated using serum from healthcare workers who underwent COVID-19 antibody testing. The antibody test results of the participants were evaluated based on their work campus, their profession and their workplace. The statistical significance level was p < 0.05 in all analyses.ResultsOf the participants in this study, 108 (3.6%) were antibody positive, and 2880 (96.4%) were negative. Antibody positivity rates were greater in nurses compared with other healthcare workers (p < 0.001). Regarding workplace, antibody positivity was greater in those working in intensive care compared to those working in other locations (p < 0.001).ConclusionsHealthcare workers are at the highest risk of being infected with COVID-19. Those who have a higher risk of infection among healthcare workers and those working in high-risk areas should be vaccinated early and use personal protective equipment during the pandemic.Trial Registration: Retrospective permission was obtained from both the local ethics committee and the Turkish Ministry of Health for this study (IRB No:71522473/050.01.04/370, Date: 05.20.2020).

Resumption of Sport at the United States Olympic and Paralympic Training Facilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In this brief report, we describe the safety of reopening US Olympic and Paralympic Training facilities (USOPTFs) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from July 2020 through October 2020. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 infection at the time of reentry and cardiopulmonary sequelae of COVID-19 in elite athletes. All athletes returning to a USOPTF were required to go through a reentry protocol consisting of an electronic health history, a 6-day quarantine including twice-daily symptom surveys, COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction and antibody testing, physical examination, 12-lead electrocardiogram, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, and pulmonary function testing. Athletes with current or prior COVID-19 infection also underwent an echocardiogram, cardiology consultation, and additional testing as indicated. All athletes followed rigorous infection prevention measures and minimized contact with the outside community following reentry. At the time of this report, 301 athletes completed the reentry protocol among which 14 (4.7%) tested positive for active (positive polymerase chain reaction test, n = 3) or prior (positive antibody test, n = 11) COVID-19 infection. During the study period, this cohort accrued 14,916 days living and training at USOPTFs. Only one (0.3%) athlete was subsequently diagnosed with a new COVID-19 infection. No cardiopulmonary pathology attributable to COVID-19 was detected. Our findings suggest that residential elite athlete training facilities can successfully resume activity during the COVID-19 pandemic when strict reentry and infection prevention measures are followed. Dissemination of our reentry quarantine and screening protocols with COVID-19 mitigation measures may assist the global sports and medical community develop best practices for reopening of similar training centers.

Symptoms of Anxiety, Burnout, and PTSD and the Mitigation Effect of Serologic Testing in Emergency Department Personnel During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Study ObjectiveAmong a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety.MethodsIn a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants’ self-reported anxiety.ResultsOf 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting decreased anxiety (2.83, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.83).ConclusionSymptoms of anxiety and burnout were prevalent across the spectrum of ED staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-fifth of ED personnel appeared to be at risk for PTSD. Increased provision of serologic testing may help to mitigate anxiety.

Updated confidence intervals for the COVID-19 antibody retention rate in the Korean population.

With the ongoing rise of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic across the globe, interests in COVID-19 antibody testing, also known as a serology test has grown, as a way to measure how far the infection has spread in the population and to identify individuals who may be immune. Recently, many countries reported their population based antibody titer study results. South Korea recently reported their third antibody formation rate, where it divided the study between the general population and the young male youths in their early twenties. As previously stated, these simple point estimates may be misinterpreted without proper estimation of standard error and confidence intervals. In this article, we provide an updated 95% confidence intervals for COVID-19 antibody formation rate for the Korean population using asymptotic, exact and Bayesian statistical estimation methods. As before, we found that the Wald method gives the narrowest interval among all asymptotic methods whereas mid p-value gives the narrowest among all exact methods and Jeffrey’s method gives the narrowest from Bayesian method. The most conservative 95% confidence interval estimation shows that as of 00:00 November 23, 2020, at least 69,524 people were infected but not confirmed. It also shows that more positive cases were found among the young male in their twenties (0.22%), three times that of the general public (0.051%). This thereby calls for the quarantine authorities’ need to strengthen quarantine managements for the early twenties in order to find the hidden infected people in the population.

Single-step, wash-free digital immunoassay for rapid quantitative analysis of serological antibody against SARS-CoV-2 by photonic resonator absorption microscopy

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), poses extraordinary threats and complex challenges to global public health. Quantitative measurement of SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer plays an important role in understanding the patient-to-patient variability of immune response, assessing the efficacy of vaccines, and identifying donors for blood transfusion therapy. There is an urgent and ever-increasing demand for serological COVID-19 antibody tests that are highly sensitive, quantitative, rapid, simple, minimally invasive, and inexpensive. In this work, we developed a single-step, wash-free immunoassay for rapid and highly sensitive quantitative analysis of serological human IgG against SARS-CoV-2 which requires only a single droplet of serum. By simply incubating 4 μL human serum samples with antibody-functionalized gold nanoparticles, a photonic crystal optical biosensor coated with the recombinant spike protein serves as a sensing platform for the formation of sandwich immunocomplex through specific antigen–antibody interactions, upon which the detected IgG molecules can be counted with digital precision. We demonstrated a single-step 15-min assay capable of detecting as low as 100 pg mL−1 human COVID-19 IgG in serum samples. The calculated limit of detecting (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) is 26.7 ± 7.7 and 32.0 ± 8.9 pg mL−1, respectively. This work represents the first utilization of the Activate Capture + Digital Counting (AC + DC)-based immunoassay for rapid and quantitative analysis of serological COVID-19 antibody, demonstrating a route toward point-of-care testing, using a portable detection instrument. On the basis of the sandwich immunoassay principle, the biosensing platform can be extended for the multiplexed detection of antigens, additional IgGs, cytokines, and other protein biomarkers.

Prevalence of COVID-19 Among Typical Ambulatory Care Patients in a District General Hospital in the United Kingdom.

ObjectivesThis observational retrospective study was undertaken to ascertain the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among typical ambulatory care patients. In our hospital, ambulatory care unit (ACU) was supposed to be a COVID-19 free area, and, hence, as per the guidelines, even basic personal protection equipment (PPE) was not provided during the early phase of pandemic.MethodsWe identified 443 patients who presented to our ACU between March and June 2020 with chest pain or shortness of breath suspected of pulmonary embolism or acute coronary syndrome, which normally makes the bulk of referrals to ACU. As per protocol, patients with COVID-19-like symptoms, e.g., fever, cough, sore throat, and loss of taste and smell, were excluded from ACU. We then, reviewed computed tomography (CT) scans for radiological evidence of COVID-19, and lab data for COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antibody tests, to find out if any of our patients turned out to be suffering from COVID-19 unexpectedly.ResultsWe found 13 patients with radiological or serological evidence of COVID-19, which equates to a prevalence of 2.93% in this cohort of our ambulatory care patients. Four in our patient cohort showed radiological features that were highly suggestive of COVID-19 pneumonia; 47 chest CT scans were performed, which may suggest a prevalence of around 8.5% (4/47) on radiological ground if everyone was offered a CT scan.ConclusionsDue to limited access to data, our result is likely an underestimation of the actual prevalence of COVID-19 among our ACU patients, highlighting the need to review the safety and PPE guidelines for the ambulatory clinic and any similar out-patient areas.

COVID-19 antibody tests: statistical implications.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant implications for society, with the introduction of restrictive social measures. Antibody tests provide a way of identifying patients who have been previously exposed to the virus and thus may have a degree of immunity. This is important in the development of public health policy, as local and national bodies seek to relax social restrictions in an attempt to mitigate the socioeconomic impact of the pandemic. This article explores the essential statistical concepts used to interpret the findings of diagnostic investigations, with examples illustrated using COVID-19 antibody tests.

How Useful is COVID-19 Antibody Testing – A Current Assessment for Oncologists

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to infection by a new human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has seriously disrupted the provision of oncology services and their uptake. Antibody testing, both at an individual level and of populations, has been widely viewed to be a key activity for guiding the options for treatment of high-risk individuals, as well as the implementation of safe control of infection measures. Ideally, the detection of a specific antibody should signify that all individuals tested have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 and that in the case of specific IgG that they are immune to further infection. This would enable SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals to be appropriately managed and healthcare workers shown to be immune to return to work where they would no longer pose a risk to their patients or be at risk themselves. Unfortunately, this is not the case for COVID-19, where it has been shown that immunity may not be protective, and seroconversion delayed or absent. The variability in antibody test performance, particularly that of lateral flow assays, has caused confusion for the public and healthcare professions alike. Many antibody test devices have been made available without independent evaluations and these may lack both adequate sensitivity and specificity. This review seeks to educate healthcare workers, particularly those working in oncology, of the current benefits and limitations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing.

Alaska pharmacists: First responders to the pandemic in the last frontier

BackgroundPharmacists are among the nation’s most accessible and underused health professionals. Within their scope of practice, pharmacists can prescribe and administer vaccines, conduct point-of-care testing, and address drug shortages through therapeutic substitutions. ObjectivesTo better use pharmacists as first responders to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we conducted a needs and capacity assessment to (1) determine individual commitment to provide COVID-19 testing and management services, (2) identify resources required to provide these services, and (3) help prioritize unmet community needs that could be addressed by pharmacists. MethodsIn March 2020, pharmacists and student pharmacists within the Alaska Pharmacist Association worked to tailor, administer, and evaluate results from a 10-question survey, including demographics (respondent name, ZIP Code, cell phone, and alternate e-mail). The survey was developed on the basis of published COVID-19 guidelines, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 screening and management guidelines, National Association of Boards of Pharmacy guidance, and joint policy recommendation from pharmacy organizations. ResultsPharmacies are located in the areas of greatest COVID-19 need in Alaska. Pharmacists are willing and interested in providing support. Approximately 63% of the pharmacists who completed the survey indicated that they were interested in providing COVID-19 nasal testing, 60% were interested in conducting COVID-19 antibody testing, and 93% were interested in prescribing and administering immunizations for COVID-19, as available. When asked about resources needed to enable pharmacists to prescribe antiviral therapy, 37% of the pharmacists indicated they needed additional education or training, and 39% required access to technology to bill and document provided services. ConclusionThe primary barrier to pharmacists augmenting the current COVID-19 response is an inability to cover the costs of providing these health services. Pharmacists in Alaska are ready to meet COVID-19–related clinical needs if public and private insurers and legislators can help address the barriers to service sustainability.

Persistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with end-stage renal disease; an unrecognized phenomenon?

Since the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic hit most parts of the world, the nephrology community has primarily focused on the associated incidence of often severe acute kidney injury (AKI) with the disease pandemic. For patients on maintenance in-center outpatient hemodialysis, the primary concern has been on prevention of the spread of COVID-19 among this vulnerable patient group. Our recent experience with one end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patient early in the Spring of 2020 has led us to speculate that ESRD patients may well exhibit an unusually prolonged period of persistence of COVID-19. This may explain the recent report of the unanticipated demonstration of a high rate of positive COVID-19 antibody testing among the staff of a Pediatric Outpatient Hemodialysis Unit in New York. Further studies are mandated as these investigations would help guide the implications of preventative measures against the spread of COVID-19 among both patients and staff of hemodialysis units around the world.

Anesthesiologists' and Intensive Care Providers' Exposure to COVID-19 Infection in a New York City Academic Center: A Prospective Cohort Study Assessing Symptoms and COVID-19 Antibody Testing.

Protecting first-line health care providers against work-related coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection at the onset of the pandemic has been a crucial challenge in the United States. Anesthesiologists in particular are considered at risk, since aerosol-generating procedures, such as intubation and extubation, have been shown to significantly increase the odds for respiratory infections during severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreaks. This study assessed the incidence of COVID-19-like symptoms and the presence of COVID-19 antibodies after work-related COVID-19 exposures, among physicians working in a large academic hospital in New York City (NYC). An e-mail survey was addressed to anesthesiologists and affiliated intensive care providers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center on April 15, 2020. The survey assessed 4 domains: (1) demographics and medical history, (2) community exposure to COVID-19 (eg, use of NYC subway), (3) work-related exposure to COVID-19, and (4) development of COVID-19-like symptoms after work exposure. The first 100 survey responders were invited to undergo a blood test to assess antibody status (presence of immunoglobulin M [IgM]/immunoglobulin G [IgG] specific to COVID-19). Work-related exposure was defined as any episode where the provider was not wearing adequate personal protective equipment (airborne or droplet/contact protection depending on the exposure type). Based on the clinical scenario, work exposure was categorized as high risk (eg, exposure during intubation) or low risk (eg, exposure during doffing). Two hundred and five health care providers were contacted and 105 completed the survey (51%); 91 completed the serological test. Sixty-one of the respondents (58%) reported at least 1 work-related exposure and 54% of the exposures were high risk. Among respondents reporting a work-related exposure, 16 (26.2%) reported postexposure COVID-19-like symptoms. The most frequent symptoms were myalgia (9 cases), diarrhea (8 cases), fever (7 cases), and sore throat (7 cases). COVID-19 antibodies were detected in 11 of the 91 tested respondents (12.1%), with no difference between respondents with (11.8%) or without (12.5%) a work-related exposure, including high-risk exposure. Compared with antibody-negative respondents, antibody-positive respondents were more likely to use NYC subway to commute to work and report COVID-19-like symptoms in the past 90 days. In the epicenter of the United States' pandemic and within 6-8 weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak, a small proportion of anesthesiologists and affiliated intensive care providers reported COVID-19-like symptoms after a work-related exposure and even fewer had detectable COVID-19 antibodies. The presence of COVID-19 antibodies appeared to be associated with community/environmental transmission rather than secondary to work-related exposures involving high-risk procedures.