Positive RT-PCR Results Research Articles

Healthcare workers' sleep and mood disturbances during COVID-19 outbreak in an Iranian referral center.

PurposeThis study aimed to assess the frequency of sleep and mood disturbances, and their association with COVID-like symptoms in healthcare workers (HCWs) with and without positive Coronavirus RT-PCR in a corona referral center.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional, anonymous survey of adult HCWs. Data collection was performed in May and June 2020, while governmental restrictions were in place. The participants completed the forms including six separate parts: personal and occupational information, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient’s Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and COVID-like symptoms and Coronavirus RT-PCR status.ResultsAmong the 372 HCW participants, 245 (66%) were women and mean age was 34.5 ± 7.1 years (age range 23 to 58). The mean scores of all questionnaires except ISI were significantly higher in the HCWs with positive Coronavirus RT-PCR than another group (PSQI, 9 ± 3.4 vs. 6.9 ± 3.1; GAD-7, 9.8 ± 3.6 vs. 7.9 ± 5.3; PHQ-9, 12.8 ± 6.1 vs. 9.5 ± 6.4, P < 0.05; and ISI, 13.8 ± 5.3 vs. 12.3 ± 6 P = 0.163). Positive association between COVID-like symptoms and sleep and mood disturbances was found in the group without a positive test result. Analysis of questionnaires showed higher scores in the group directly involved except for ISI (P < 0.001 and P = 0.053 respectively).ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the HCWs in this sample experienced a high rate of sleep and mood disturbances. There was also a strong association between sleep and mood disturbances and COVID-like symptoms in the group without a positive RT-PCR result. With all this considered, effective psychological support for HCWs during crisis seems to be necessary.

Cumulative Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Associated Risk Factors Among Frontline Health Care Workers in Paris, France: The SEROCOV Prospective Cohort Study

Background: With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern.Methods: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from COVID-19 frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive serology and/or positive RT-PCR result) at M3. Secondary outcomes were positive serology for SARS-CoV-2 at M0, M1 and M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression.Findings: Among 1,062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Seroprevalence at M0, M1, and M3 was 5.9% [4.7; 7.5], 12.9% [10.9; 15.1] and 13.0% [11.1; 15.2], respectively. Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95%CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); active smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3.Interpretation: The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. Seroprevalence in May was higher than in the general population. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial Registration: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690Funding Statement: The sponsor of the study was Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), with study management by URC Pitié-Salpêtrière. This study was funded by the French Ministry of Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique) and the French Agency for Research (Fond d’amorçage de l’Agence National pour la Recherche).Declaration of Interests: None to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: The SEROCOV study was approved by the ethics committee (CPP Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer I, approval no. 2-20-023 id7257) and all participants signed informed consent before inclusion.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Simultaneously Collected Tear and Throat Swab Samples from the Patients with 2019- new SARS-CoV-2 Infection Disease: A Single Center Cross-sectional Study

ABSTRACT Objecive : This study aimed to evaluate whether Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be detected in the tears in the eyes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-2019) infected patients and compare the detection consistency of two simultaneously collected samples, from the tears and throat swabs. Methods : A total of 35 COVID-2019 patients were included in this cross-sectional case series study. Throat samples from all enrolled patients were collected with sampling swab, and simultaneously, tear samples were collected with sampling swab from 9 patients (No.1–9) and with Schirmer’s strip from the remaining patients (No.10–35) (bilateral eyes for all patients). Sample collecting and testing were performed in three separate time points: first from patients No.1–9, second from patients No.10–29, and third from patients No. 30–35. Reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay was performed. Results : Among enrolled patients, 29 (No.1–29) had mild or moderate clinical symptoms and 6 (No.30–35) had severe symptoms. The mean time interval from the sample collection day to diagnosis confirmation day was 9.71 ± 6.50 days (ranged from 3 to 29 days). None of the patients had conjunctivitis. Nineteen out of 35 (54.3%) throat samples presented positive Rt-PCR results. Three (no.13,21,31) out of 35 (8.6%) tear samples presented positive RT-PCR results. Two (no.21, 31) of these three patients were throat swab positive and one (No. 13) was negative. The consistency analysis indicated that tears and throat samples showed poor consistency (Kappa = −0.009, P = .9).The cycle threshold value (Ct-value) of tear samples collected by sampling swab was significantly higher than that by Schirmer’s strip (t = 2.288, P = .03). Conclusion : In spite of the low SARS-CoV-2 positive detection rate of tear samples from COVID-2019 patients, we cannot fully rule out the transmission by ocular surface. Whether tear testing can be used as an aid in judging of SARS-CoV-2 infection need further investigation.

SARS-CoV-2 in Spent Dialysate from Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis Patients with COVID-19.

To date, it is unclear whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in spent dialysate from patients with COVID-19 on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Our aim was to assess the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 in spent dialysate from patients on chronic PD who had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Spent PD dialysate samples from patients on PD who were positive for COVID-19 were collected between March and August 2020. The multiplexed, real-time RT-PCR assay contained primer/probe sets specific to different SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions and to bacteriophage MS2 as an internal process control for nucleic acid extraction. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from patients' electronic health records. A total of 26 spent PD dialysate samples were collected from 11 patients from ten dialysis centers. Spent PD dialysate samples were collected, on average, 25±13 days (median, 20; range, 10-45) after the onset of symptoms. The temporal distance of PD effluent collection relative to the closest positive nasal-swab RT-PCR result was 15±11 days (median, 14; range, 1-41). All 26 PD effluent samples tested negative at three SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions. Our findings indicate the absence of SARS-CoV-2 in spent PD dialysate collected at ≥10 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. We cannot rule out the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in spent PD dialysate in the early stage of COVID-19.

COVID-19 infection among emergency department healthcare providers in a large tertiary academic medical center following the peak of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread through the US during the last few months exposing healthcare providers to possible infection. Here we report testing of emergency department (ED) healthcare providers (HCP) for exposure to COVID-19 through lateral flow point of care (POC) and lab-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and RTq-PCR for evidence of acute infection.138 ED HCP were tested between May 26th (approximately one month after the peak of COVID-19 first wave of cases) and June 14th. Enrolled ED HCP represented about 70% of the total ED HCP workforce during the study period. Subjects were tested with a POC COVID-19 antibody test, and standard ELISA performed by a university-based research lab. Subjects also provided a mid-turbinate swab and a saliva specimen for RTq-PCR. All subjects provided demographic information, past medical history, information about personal protective equipment (PPE) use, COVID-19 symptoms, as well as potential COVID-19 exposures during the previous 4 weeks, both in the ED, and outside the clinical setting.None of the HCP had positive RT-PCR results; 7 HCP (5%) had positive IgG for COVID-19; there was strong agreement between the lab-based ELISA (reference test) and the POC Ab test (P ≤ 0.0001). For the POC Ab test there were no false negatives and only one false positive among the 138 participants. There was no significant difference in demographic/ethnic variables, past medical history, hours worked in the ED, PPE use, or concerning exposures between seropositive and seronegative individuals. Moreover, there was no significant difference in reported symptoms between the two groups during the previous four weeks.The rate of COVID-19 seroconversion in our ED was 5% during the month following the pandemic's first wave. Based on questionnaire responses, differences in demographics/ethnicity, medical history, COVID-19 exposures, and PPE use were not associated with ED HCP having been infected with SARS-CoV-2. In the setting of our limited cohort of subjects the COVID-19 POC Ab test performed comparably to the ELISA lab-based standard.

COVID-19—Clinical Relevance of a Negative RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 Test

(1) Background: In the current clinical practice of the COVID-19 infection, the focus should not be placed on the positive RT-PCR results, but rather on the epidemiological, clinical, and imaging aspects specific to the disease. (2) Case Report: We present the case of a 34-year-old female, who had contacts with both her parents, both of whom were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR testing. She presented for about one week symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 infection, determining her to repeatedly go to the emergency room, where she had three negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests. The blood tests revealed leukopenia with lymphocytopenia, with increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Moreover, the chest X-ray showed modifications specific for COVID-19, and the diagnosis of COVID-19 was set. Drug treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, cephalosporins, systemic corticosteroids, anticoagulants, bronchodilators, and interleukin-6 inhibitors was initiated, together with oxygen therapy. (3) Discussion: SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing may give false negative results due to inadequate biological sampling, or to the accuracy of the test methods. A significant contribution to the diagnosis is made by the specific computed tomography (CT) criteria of COVID-19. (4) Conclusions: A priority for COVID-19 diagnosis accuracy is epidemiological investigation, together with clinical criteria and CT imaging, even in the presence of a negative RT-PCR test.

Confirmed or unconfirmed cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Italian patients: a retrospective analysis of clinical features

BackgroundSince December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a novel etiologic agent of viral pneumonia. We aimed to compare clinical features of 165 Italian patients with laboratory confirmed or unconfirmed 2019-nCoV pneumonia.MethodsOn March 31, 2020, hospitalized patients who presented with fever and/or respiratory symptoms, exposures, and presence of lung imaging features consistent with 2019-nCoV pneumonia were included. Before admission to a hospital ward, patients underwent RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in their nasopharyngeal swab samples.ResultsOf 165 patients studied, 119 had positive RT-PCR results and 46 were RT-PCR negative for 2 days or longer (i.e., when the last swab sample was obtained). The median age was 70 years (IQR, 58–78), and 123 (74.6%) of 165 patients had at least one comorbidity. The majority of patients (101/165, 61.2%) had a mild pneumonia, and the remaining patients (64/165, 38.8%) a severe/critical pneumonia. We did not find any substantial difference in symptoms, incubation periods, and radiographic/CT abnormalities as well as in many of the biological abnormalities recorded. However, at multivariable analysis, higher concentrations of hemoglobin (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11–1.65; P = 0.003) and lower counts of leukocytes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72–0.90; P < 0.001) were statistically associated with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. While mortality rates were similar, patients with confirmed diagnosis were more likely to receive antivirals (95% vs 19.6%, P < 0.001) and to develop ARDS (63% vs 37%, P = 0.003) than those with unconfirmed COVID-19 diagnosis.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that unconfirmed 2019-nCoV pneumonia cases may be actually COVID-19 cases and that clinicians should be cautious when managing patients with presentations compatible with COVID-19.

Performance of Low-Dose Chest CT Scan for Initial Triage of COVID-19

Background: Chest computed tomography (CT) scan is frequently used for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in regions with limited availability of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) test. Low-dose CT of chest offers acceptable image quality with lower radiation dose, particularly important in younger patients. Objectives: We have designed the current study to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of low-dose chest CT versus early RT-PCR results, for triage of COVID-19 patients. Patients and Methods: From February 20 to April 15, 2020, 163 patients including 100 males (61.3%) with the median age of 65 years (21 to 97), who underwent both RT-PCR and chest CT were registered in the study. Low-dose chest CT protocol was applied with parameters modified from the lung cancer screening protocol. The accuracy of low-dose chest CT for COVID-19 diagnosis was evaluated, considering first RT-PCR results as reference. Results: Of 163 patients, 89 cases (54.6%) were presented with positive initial RT-PCR result. Lymphocyte percentage and lymphocyte count were significantly lower in the positive RT-PCR group (15% versus 19%, and 0.98 vs. 1.3, respectively); while, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was significantly higher (53 vs. 22). Positive chest CT findings were present in 133/163 cases (81.6%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and accuracy of low-dose chest CT scan were 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90% - 99%), 36.5% (95% CI, 26% - 49%), 64.7% (95% CI, 56% - 73%), 90% (95% CI, 72% - 97%) and 69.3% (95% CI, 61% - 76%), respectively based on positive RT-PCR results. Conclusion: Low-dose chest CT scan provides both high sensitivity and negative predictive value in diagnosing COVID-19 compared to initial RT-PCR as the gold standard. It can be used as an alternate to standard-dose CT scan in areas with high prevalence of COVID-19 disease and limited availability of RT-PCR for early triage.

Clinical performance of four immunoassays for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, including a prospective analysis for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a real-life routine care setting.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of four SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays and their contribution in routine care for the diagnosis of COVID-19, in order to benefit of robust data before their extensive use. The clinical performance of Euroimmun ELISA SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA, and DiaPro COVID-19 IgG confirmation were evaluated in the context of both a retrospective and a prospective analysis of COVID-19 patients. The retrospective analysis included plasma samples from 63 COVID-19 patients and 89 control (pre-pandemic) patients. The prospective study included 203 patients who tested either negative (n = 181) or positive (n = 22) by RT-PCR before serology sampling. The specificity was 92.1 %, 98.9 %, 100 % and 98.9 % and the sensitivity 14 days after onset of symptoms was 95.6 %, 95.6 %, 97.8 % and 95.6 % for Euroimmun IgG, Abbott IgG, Wantai Ab, and DiaPro IgG confirmation SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, respectively. The low specificity of Euroimmun IgG (for ratio <5) was not confirmed in routine care setting (98.5 % negative agreement). Serology was complementary to RT-PCR in routine care and lead to identification of false positive (Ct>38, <2 targets detected) and false negative RT-PCR results (>1 month post onset of symptoms). Serology was complementary to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 at least 14 days after onset of symptoms. First line serology testing can be performed with Wantai Ab or Abbott IgG assays, while DiaPro IgG confirmation assay can be used as an efficient confirmation assay.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 in Tears of Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19

PurposeTo investigate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in tears of patients with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).DesignCross-sectional study.ParticipantsPatients with laboratory-proven moderate to severe COVID-19.MethodsTears were collected within 48 hours of laboratory confirmation using 3 methods: conjunctival swab plus Schirmer’s test strips (group 1), conjunctival swab (group 2), and Schirmer’s test strips (group 3). Samples from both the eyes of each patient were transported in a single viral transport media for real-time RT-PCR. Detailed demographic profiles, systemic symptoms, comorbidities, and ocular manifestations were noted.Main Outcome MeasuresViral load of a sample was determined using cycle threshold (Ct) value of E gene. A specimen was considered to show positive results if the amplification curve for the E gene crossed the threshold line within 35 cycles and if it showed positive results on an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase or open reading frame 1b gene assay.ResultsOf the 78 patients enrolled in the study, samples from 3 patients were found to be inadequate for analysis. Thirty-six patients (48%) had moderate disease, whereas 39 patients (52%) had severe disease, with no ocular involvement in any patient. In the 75 patients, RT-PCR analysis of tears showed positive results in 18 patients (24%), and 29 of 225 samples (12.9%) showed positive results. Positive results were found in 11 (14.7%), 11 (14.7%), and 7 (9.3%) patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = 0.3105). Mean Ct values in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 28.36 ± 6.15, 29.00 ± 5.58, and 27.86 ± 6.46 (P = 0.92), respectively. Five patients showed positive RT-PCR results by all 3 methods (mean Ct value, 25.24 ± 6.33), and 12 patients showed positive results by any of the 3 methods (mean Ct value, 32.16 ± 1.94), the difference in Ct values being statistically significant (P = 0.029). The median value of symptomatology in patients with positive RT-PCR results from tears was 5 days (range, 4–9 days).ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in tears of 24% of patients with laboratory-proven moderate to severe COVID-19. Conjunctival swab remains the gold standard of tear collection for RT-PCR assay. A significantly higher possibility of viral transmission exists through tears in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

COVID-19 pneumonia: Diagnostic and prognostic role of CT based on a retrospective analysis of 214 consecutive patients from Paris, France

ObjectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of CT in patients referred for COVID19 suspicion to a French university hospital, depending on symptoms and date of onset. MethodsFrom March 1st to March 28th, 214 patients having both chest CT scan and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT- PCT) within 24 h were retrospectively evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of first and expert readings were calculated together with inter reader agreement, with results of RT-PCR as standard of reference and according to symptoms and onset date. Patient characteristics and disease extent on CT were correlated to short-term outcome (death or intubation at 3 weeks follow-up). ResultsOf the 214 patients (119 men, mean age 59 ± 19 years), 129 had at least one positive RT-PCR result. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were 79 % (95 % CI: 71–86 %), 84 %(74–91 %), 72 %(63–81 %) and 88 % (81–93 %) for initial CT reading and 81 %(74–88 %), 91 % (82–96 %), 76 % (67–84 %) and 93 % (87–97 %), for expert reading, with strong inter-reader agreement (kappa index: 0.89). Considering the 123 patients with symptoms for more than 5 days, the corresponding figures were 90 %, 78 %, 80 % and 89 % for initial reading and 93 %, 88 %, 86 % and 94 % for the expert. Disease extent exceeded 25 % for 68 % and 26 % of severe and non-severe patients, respectively (p < 0.001). ConclusionCT sensitivity increased after 5 days of symptoms. A disease extent > 25 % was associated with poorer outcome.

Chest CT accuracy in diagnosing COVID-19 during the peak of the Italian epidemic: A retrospective correlation with RT-PCR testing and analysis of discordant cases

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to assess chest computed tomography (CT) diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice using RT-PCR as standard of reference. MethodsFrom March 4th to April 9th 2020, during the peak of the Italian COVID-19 epidemic, we enrolled a series of 773 patients that performed both non-contrast chest CT and RT-PCR with a time interval no longer than a week due to suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. The diagnostic performance of CT was evaluated according to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy, considering RT-PCR as the reference standard. An analysis on the patients with discrepant CT scan and RT-PCR result and on the patient with both negative tests was performed. ResultsRT-PCR testing showed an overall positive rate of 59.8 %. CT sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection were 90.7 % [95 % IC, 87.7%–93.2%], 78.8 % [95 % IC, 73.8−83.2%], 86.4 % [95 % IC, 76.1 %–88.9 %], 85.1 % [95 % IC, 81.0 %–88.4] and 85.9 % [95 % IC 83.2−88.3%], respectively. Twenty-five/66 (37.6 %) patients with positive CT and negative RT-PCR results and 12/245 (4.9 %) patients with both negative tests were nevertheless judged as positive cases by the clinicians based on clinical and epidemiological criteria and consequently treated. ConclusionsIn our experience, in a context of high pre-test probability, CT scan shows good sensitivity and a consistently higher specificity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia than what reported by previous studies, especially when clinical and epidemiological features are taken into account.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Children: A Study in an Iranian Children's Referral Hospital.

BackgroundDespite the worldwide spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the epidemiological and clinical patterns of the COVID-19 infection remain largely unclear, particularly among children. In this study, we explored the epidemiological characteristics, clinical patterns, and laboratory and imaging findings of pediatric patients with COVID-19.Materials and MethodsFrom March 7 to March 30, 2020, there were a total of 35 patients who had confirmed COVID-19 infection by laboratory virus nucleic acid test (RT-PCR) assay with throat swab samples or typical chest CT manifestation compatible with COVID-19, in addition to a history of close contact with suspected or confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 in family members. Information recorded included demographic data, medical history, exposure history, underlying comorbidities, symptoms, signs, laboratory findings and radiologic assessments, severity of disease, treatment, and mortality.ResultsThe median age of the patients was 7.5 years (IQR=4–11; range=4 months to 15 years). A total of 63% were male. Cough was present in 80% of the patients, followed by fever (77%), nausea or vomiting (29%), diarrhea (26%), shortness of breath (29%), headache (20%), and myalgia (14%). Lymphopenia was present in 43% of the patients, thrombocytopenia in 9%, neutopenia in 8%, and leucopenia in 26%. We reported severe pneumonia in 40% of the hospitalized patients and 18 (51%) had underlying diseases. Of 35 patients, 11 had positive RT-PCR results (31%). The chest CT images of 24 patients (69%) suggested COVID-19, while their RT-PCR assays from throat swab samples were negative.ConclusionThis study demonstrates different clinical findings of pediatrics compared to the previous reports of children. Since a high rate of false negative RT-PCR test was observed, early detection of children with COVID-19 infection by CT is conducive to reasonable management and early treatment.

An Observational Study of Intrauterine Vertical Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in 20 Neonates

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. Neonates have the risk of contracting COVID-19 through intrauterine vertical transmission, which is one of the most serious consequences of infectious diseases. Methods: We enrolled neonates and their mother, who was suffered from COVID-19 during the last trimester. We investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2, as well as IgG and IgM against the virus in a longitudinal analysis from the labor period to one month after birth. Findings: From February 2 to March 31, 2020, of 20 neonates, 10 neonates and eight neonates had pneumonia and increased lung markings, respectively. At birth, three neonates had positive RT-PCR results of throat swabs, 16 neonates had increased IgG and/or IgM. The mean concentrations of IgG and IgM were mean [SD] 77.7 [28.4] and 11.1 [12.8] ng/mL, respectively. Among nine neonates whose antibody was measured more than once after delivery, one displayed rapidly increased IgM from 1.0 ng/mL at birth to 21.8 ng/mL at 7 days after birth, and 15 showed steadily decreasing IgM. For IgG levels, seven neonates exhibited a slowly decreasing trend after birth and two exhibited a steadily high level. At the birth time, eight neonates were at the acute phase of infection, including five with high or increased IgM and three with positive RT-PCR results. The remaining 12 neonates who had low IgM levels and negative RT-PCR were at the recovery phase. Conclusions: The study identified the presence of intrauterine vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which led to various phases of infection in the neonates at birth time. Funding Statement: This study was supported by the General Program of Health and Family Planning Commission of Hubei Province of China (Grant No. WJ2017M194), the General Program of Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China (Grant No. 2017CFB709), and Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo (2017A610273). Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: This observational study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Wuhan Women and Children's Hospital and followed the Declaration of Helsinki. Written consent was acquired from the guardians of the patients.

Diagnostic impact of bedside chest X-ray features of 2019 novel coronavirus in the routine admission at the emergency department: case series from Lombardy region

PurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and the imaging features of routine admission chest X-ray in patients suspected for novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. MethodWe retrospectively evaluated clinical and X-ray features in all patients referred to the emergency department for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1st and March 13th. A single radiologist with more than 15 years of experience in chest-imaging evaluated the presence and extent of alveolar opacities, reticulations, and/or pleural effusion. The percentage of lung involvement (range <25 % to 75–100 %) was also calculated. We stratified patients in groups according to the time interval between symptoms onset and X-ray imaging (≤ 5 and > 5 days) and according to age (≤ 50 and > 50 years old). ResultsA total of 518 patients were enrolled. Overall 314 patients had negative and 204 had positive RT-PCR results. Lung lesions in patients with SARS-Cov2 pneumonia primarily manifested as alveolar and interstitial opacities and were mainly bilateral (60.8 %). Lung abnormalities were more frequent and more severe by symptom duration and by increasing age. The sensitivity and specificity of chest X-ray at admission in the overall cohort were 57 % (95 % CI = 47–67) and 89 % (83–94), respectively. Sensitivity was higher for patients with symptom onset > 5 days compared to ≤ 5 days (76 % [62–87] vs 37 % [24–52]) and in patients > 50 years old compared to ≤ 50 years (59 % [48–69] vs 47 % [23–72]), at the expense of a slightly lower specificity (68 % [45–86] and 82 % [73–89], respectively). ConclusionsOverall chest X-ray sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was 57 %. Sensitivity was higher when symptoms had started more than 5 days before, at the expense of lesser specificity, while slightly higher in older patients in comparison to younger ones.

Preparation for Quarantine on the Cruise Ship Diamond Princess in Japan due to COVID-19.

BackgroundJapan implemented a large-scale quarantine on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in an attempt to control the spread of the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in February 2020.ObjectiveWe aim to describe the medical activities initiated and difficulties in implementing quarantine on a cruise ship.MethodsReverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2 were performed for all 3711 people (2666 passengers and 1045 crew) on board.ResultsOf those tested, 696 (18.8%) tested positive for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), of which 410 (58.9%) were asymptomatic. We also confirmed that 54% of the asymptomatic patients with a positive RT-PCR result had lung opacities on chest computed tomography. There were many difficulties in implementing quarantine, such as creating a dividing traffic line between infectious and noninfectious passengers, finding hospitals and transportation providers willing to accept these patients, transporting individuals, language barriers, and supporting daily life. As of March 8, 2020, 31 patients (4.5% of patients with positive RT-PCR results) were hospitalized and required ventilator support or intensive care, and 7 patients (1.0% of patients with positive RT-PCR results) had died.ConclusionsThere were several difficulties in implementing large-scale quarantine and obtaining medical support on the cruise ship. In the future, we need to prepare for patients’ transfer and the admitting hospitals when disembarking the passengers. We recommend treating the crew the same way as the passengers to control the infection. We must also draw a plan for the future, to protect travelers and passengers from emerging infectious diseases on cruise ships.

Can Chest CT Features Distinguish Patients With Negative From Those With Positive Initial RT-PCR Results for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)?

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to explore the value of CT in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia, especially for patients who have negative initial results of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia from January 19, 2020, to February 20, 2020, were included. All patients underwent chest CT and swab RT-PCR tests within 3 days. Patients were divided into groups with negative (seven patients) and positive (14 patients) initial RT-PCR results. The imaging findings in both groups were recorded and compared. RESULTS. Twenty-one patients with symptoms (nine men, 12 women; age range, 26-90 years) were evaluated. Most of the COVID-19 lesions were located in multiple lobes (67%) in both lungs (72%) in our study. The main CT features were ground-glass opacity (95%) and consolidation (72%) with a subpleural distribution (100%). Otherwise, 33% of patients had other lesions around the bronchovascular bundle. The other CT features included air bronchogram (57%), vascular enlargement (67%), interlobular septal thickening (62%), and pleural effusions (19%). Compared with that in the group with positive initial RT-PCR results, CT of the group with negative initial RT-PCR results was less likely to show pulmonary consolidation (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION. The less pulmonary consolidation found at CT, the greater is the possibility of negative initial RT-PCR results. Chest CT is important in the screening of patients in whom disease is clinically suspected, especially those who have negative initial RT-PCR results.

A new Real Time PCR with species-specific primers from Plasmodium malariae/P. brasilianum mitochondrial cytochrome b gene

Plasmodium malariae mainly causes asymptomatic submicroscopic parasitemia in the endemic Amazon and non-endemic Atlantic Forest, where the number of cases and transmission of malaria through blood transfusion has increased. This study developed a P. malariae/P. brasilianum Real Time PCR (rtPCR) targeting the cytochrome b oxidase (cytb), a highly repetitive gene (20-150 copies/parasite) that should detect more cases than the 18S rRNA (4-8 copies/parasite) gene-based amplification systems. Cytb from human and non-human Plasmodium species (including P. brasilianum) aligned to the only 20 African P. malariae cytb sequences identified polymorphic regions within which we designed P. malariae species-specific primers. Non-human Plasmodium species, related parasites, anemia-causing microorganisms, normal human DNA and 47 blood bank donors samples that were truly negative to malaria accessed rtPCR specificity. Truly positive samples (n = 101) with species identification by semi-nested, nested or TaqMan PCR, and four samples from the Atlantic Forest that were suspected of malaria but three of them had negative genus TaqMan and 18S rRNA nested PCR. The cloned amplification product used in standard curves determined qPCR detection limit (0.5-1 parasite equivalent/μL). The 10 positive P. malariae samples among truly positives yielded positive rtPCR results and more importantly, rtPCR detected the four samples suspected of malaria from the Atlantic Forest. The rtPCR specificity was 100%, reproducibility 11.1% and repeatability 6.7%. In conclusion, the proposed rtPCR is fast, apparently more sensitive than all 18S rRNA amplification systems for detecting extremely low parasitemia. The rtPCR is also specific to P. malariae/P. brasilianum species. This new molecular tool could be applied to the detection of P. malariae/brasilianum infections with submicroscopic parasitemias in the context of epidemiological studies and blood bank safety programs.

Comparison of Positive Results With End-Point and Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for the Diagnosis of Pneumocystis Pneumonia

Background The definitive diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia requires direct visualization of the organism; in recent years, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, although not standardized, have become widely used diagnostic tools. A concern is that newer, more sensitive PCR assays will not differentiate colonization from infection. We evaluated the clinical implications of 2 different PCR assays for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia. Methods Adult patients with a bronchoalveolar lavage or sputum sample positive for Pneumocystis by PCR from February 2014 to February 2018 were studied. Samples were tested with end-point (EP) PCR before February 2017 and with real-time (RT) PCR after February 2017. A strict case definition based on host factors, clinical presentation, radiological and pathological findings, and response to therapy was used to categorize cases as proven, probable, possible, and no Pneumocystis pneumonia. Positive EP-PCR and RT-PCR results were deemed to be true positives or false positives based on this categorization of patients. Results Of 1693 patients tested, 153 (9%) had a positive PCR test result, and 118 met the case definitions for proven (n = 2), probable (n = 70), and possible (n = 46) Pneumocystis pneumonia., Among 35 patients with a positive PCR test result who did not the meet criteria for Pneumocystis infection and who had a verified alternative diagnosis, 8 (23%) were false positive by EP-PCR and 27 (77%) by RT-PCR (P &lt; 0.0001). Among the 27 patients who did not have host factors that would classically place them at risk of Pneumocystis infection, RT-PCR gave significantly more false-positive results (n = 12; 44%) than did EP-PCR (n = 2; 7%; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions Reverse transcription PCR gave significantly more positive results than did EP-PCR in patients who likely were colonized only and did not have Pneumocystis infection. Host risk factors, clinical presentation, and radiological findings should be considered before ordering PCR testing for Pneumocystis.

A systematic review of contemporary evidence on SARS-CoV-2 and HIV coinfection: What does it look like up to date?

ABSTRACTBackground:Preexisting alteration of the immune system by factors including older age, cardiovascular diseases, morbid obesity, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have detrimental effects on SARS-CoV-2 patients. Literature regarding SARS-CoV-2/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is still developing.Materials and Methods:We reviewed the existing literature pertaining to SARS-CoV-2/HIV coinfection systematically. Research records’ characteristics and patients’ clinical data were collected. Results:Seven research records were included, of which three were case series and four were case reports, reporting a total of 16 cases. There was one case of death, whereas (15/16) patients were discharged home. Majority of patients developed consistent clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2. All patients had initial positive RT-PCR results, and four cases had HIV-related lymphopenia.Conclusion:Although the current literature is still growing to increase our understanding of SARS-CoV-2/HIV coinfection, people living with HIV should adhere to the guidelines of healthy behavior and practice during this pandemic.