Practical Diagnostic Accuracy of Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Improving wound swab collection in paediatric patients: a quality improvement project

Microbiology sample swabs may be unsuccessful or rejected for a variety of reasons. Typically, errors occur in the preanalytical phase of sample collection. Errors with collection, handling and transport can lead to the need to repeat specimen collection. Unsuccessful specimens contribute to delays in diagnosis, increased patient stress and increased healthcare costs. An audit of sample swabs from London Health Sciences Centre Children's Hospital from August through October 2021 yielded complete success rates of 100% for ear and eye culture swabs, 98.1% for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus swabs and 88.9% for wound swabs. This project aimed to improve wound swab success to 95% on the paediatric inpatient and paediatric emergency departments by May 2022.Stakeholders from paediatric clinical services including physicians, nurses and the laboratory medicine team at our centre were engaged to guide quality improvement interventions to improve specimen success rate. Based on feedback, we implemented visual aids to our electronic laboratory test information guide. Additionally, visual reminders of correct sample collection equipment were placed in high traffic areas for nursing staff.After the interventions were implemented, a three-month follow-up showed that wound swab success rate rose to 95.3%. This study achieved its aim of improving wound swab success rate to 95%. It adds to the growing pool of evidence that preanalytical phase intervention such as visual aids can increase swab success rates, in healthcare settings.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Routine Laboratory Tests for COVID-19

Objectives: COVID-19 has ravaged healthcare systems across the globe. Availability of and timely results for PCR testing have made diagnosis in the Emergency Department challenging. Therefore, we sought to determine if routine serum laboratory tests could be diagnostic of COVID-19. Methods: All patients tested for COVID-19 at an academic hospital in Pennsylvania between 1 March 2020–28 April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Results of COVID-19 PCR testing and laboratory tests were recorded. Mean difference was used to determine which tests demonstrated a significant difference, with p < 0.01 used, due to multiple observations. The tests that met these criteria had ROC curves and sensitivity and specificity determined. Results: Of the patients identified, 553 had had any laboratory test. All tests that showed a statistically significant mean difference were lower in COVID-19 positive patients. These included white blood cell count, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, absolute lymphocyte count, absolute eosinophil count, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, troponin T, lactic acid, D-DIMER, and procalcitonin. D-Dimer was excluded for only having four tests completed in COVID-19 positive patients. The remaining tests had a specificity of 88–96%, with a sensitivity of 5–50%. Discussion: No single serum laboratory test demonstrated sensitivity for COVID-19. Some tests might be moderately specific, but this was of limited clinical use. Future research should focus on a combination of tests to diagnose COVID-19, and healthcare systems should work to obtain rapid and accurate PCR tests to diagnose COVID-19.

The Impact of Anti-rheumatic Drugs on the Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis: The MAINSTREAM Study

Objectives

Given the high occurrence of asymptomatic subsets, the true prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in rheumatic patients is still underestimated. This study aims to evaluate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) patients receiving immunomodulatory drugs.

Methods

All consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) evaluated between 4th May and 16th June 2020 were included. All participants were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA) by ELISA and were questioned about previous COVID-19 symptoms and clinical course. Results were compared with healthy population from the same region and with a control group of healthy subjects diagnosed with confirmed COVID-19.

Results

The study population includes 358 patients. The overall prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (18.4%) was higher than prevalence rate based on swab-positivity (1.12%) or clinically suspected cases (10.6%), but consistent with seroprevalence observed in the healthy population. Among seropositive patients 58% were asymptomatic. Mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 titer was comparable with the control group. No differences in seroprevalence were observed according to age, sex, rheumatic disease and treatment with conventional, biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs, whereas glucocorticoids and comorbidities resulted in higher seroprevalence rate.

Conclusions

The results of this study are reassuring about the low impact of RMDs and immunomodulatory therapies on the risk and clinical course of COVID-19 and on humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Case report of cardiogenic shock in COVID-19 myocarditis: peculiarities on diagnosis, histology, and treatment

Background

The year 2020 was dramatically characterized by SARS-CoV-2 pandemic outbreak. COVID-19-related heart diseases and myocarditis have been reported.

Case summary

A 45-year-old healthy male was admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital because of cardiogenic shock. A diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and myocarditis was done. We present here several peculiarities about diagnostic workup, myocardial histological findings, choice of treatment, and the patient clinical course at 3 and 8 months of follow-up.

Discussion

COVID-19 myocardial damage and myocarditis are mainly linked to the cytokine storm with mild myocardial inflammatory infiltrate and very unusual platelet microclots in the setting of the microvascular obstructive thrombo-inflammatory syndrome. Counteracting the inflammatory burden with an interleukine-1 inhibitor appeared safe and led to a dramatic and stable improvement of cardiac function.

Simple concentration method enables the use of gargle and mouthwash instead of nasopharyngeal swab sampling for the diagnosis of COVID-19 by PCR

Since its emergence in December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 is causing one of the most devastating pandemics in human history. Currently, the most important method for definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 is identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swab samples by RT-PCR. Nasopharyngeal swab sampling is a discomforting procedure sometimes with adverse effects, which also poses a risk for infection for the personnel performing the sampling. We have developed a new method for concentrating biological samples, which enabled us to use gargle and mouthwash samples to be used in RT-PCR, for the diagnosis of COVID-19, as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swab samples. We have analyzed nasopharyngeal and gargle and mouthwash samples, before and after concentration, of 363 patients by RT-PCR for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. Among 114 patients in which SARS-CoV-2 was identified in at least one of their samples, the virus was identified in 76 (66.7%), 67 (58.8%), and 101 (88.6%) of nasopharyngeal swab, gargle, and mouthwash samples before and after concentration, respectively. When concentrated by our new method, gargle and mouthwash samples can be used instead of nasopharyngeal samples in identification of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, with the same or better sensitivity. Eliminating the need for nasopharyngeal sampling will save the patients from an invasive and painful procedure and will lower the risk of infection for the healthcare personnel taking the sample. This easy sampling procedure may decrease the workload of hospitals, shorten the turnaround time of obtaining test results, and thus enable rapid isolation of infected patients.

Lessons from countries implementing find, test, trace, isolation and support policies in the rapid response of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically learn lessons from the experiences of countries implementing find, test, trace, isolate, support (FTTIS) in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN, DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and JSTOR, initially between 31 May 2019 and 21 January 2021. Research articles and reviews on the use of contact tracing, testing, self-isolation and quarantine for COVID-19 management were included in the review.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We extracted information including study objective, design, methods, main findings and implications. These were tabulated and a narrative synthesis was undertaken given the diverse research designs, methods and implications.

RESULTS

We identified and included 118 eligible studies. We identified the core elements of an effective find, test, trace, isolate, support (FTTIS) system needed to interrupt the spread of a novel infectious disease, where treatment or vaccination was not yet available, as pertained in the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. We report methods used to shorten case finding time, improve accuracy and efficiency of tests, coordinate stakeholders and actors involved in an FTTIS system, support individuals isolating and make appropriate use of digital tools.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified in our systematic review the key components of an FTTIS system. These include border controls, restricted entry, inbound traveller quarantine and comprehensive case finding; repeated testing to minimise false diagnoses and pooled testing in resource-limited circumstances; extended quarantine period and the use of digital tools for contact tracing and self-isolation. Support for mental or physical health and livelihoods is needed for individuals undergoing self-isolation/quarantine. An integrated system with rolling-wave planning can best use effective FTTIS tools to respond to the fast-changing COVID-19 pandemic. Results of the review may inform countries considering implementing these measures.

Comparison of the simultaneous conjunctiva and oropharynx-nasopharynx swab results in patients applying to the SARS-CoV-2 outpatient clinic for the first time

The aim is to comparatively evaluate the results of simultaneous conjunctiva and oropharynx–nasopharynx (ONP) swabs in patients who had presented to the outpatient department with a suspicion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). An ONP sample was obtained following bilateral conjunctiva swabs in 85 subjects with a contact history or symptoms but unknown SARS‐CoV‐2 status and with no ocular symptoms or findings. The results were evaluated according to the patient's symptoms and how the swab was taken. The conjunctiva swab was positive in 29 (34.1%) cases and the ONP swab in 20 (23.5%) cases. Both methods produced positive results in 11 (14.1%) cases. The mean cycle threshold (C_t) value was 30.15 ± 3.41 in symptomatic cases and 33.62 ± 1.76 in asymptomatic cases (p = .008). The mean C_t value was 24.37 ± 3.48 when only the ONP swab was positive and 31.22 ± 1.99 when only the conjunctiva swab was positive. In cases that were positive by both methods, the mean C_t value was 25.21 ± 4.94 for the ONP swab and 30.29 ± 5.05 for the conjunctiva swab. We found higher SARS‐CoV‐2 detection rates with the conjunctiva swab than the ONP swab in cases with unknown SARS‐CoV‐2 status in the early period. In addition, the conjunctival viral load seemed to be higher in symptomatic cases than in asymptomatic cases. We, therefore, believe a conjunctiva swab could be an alternative method to detect SARS‐CoV‐2 at the time of the first presentation to the outpatient department.

The Complexity of Co-Infections in the Era of COVID-19

The current frequency of COVID-19 in a pandemic era ensures that co-infections with a variety of co-pathogens will occur. Generally, there is a low rate of bonafide co-infections in early COVID-19 pulmonary infection as currently appreciated. Reports of high co-infection rates must be tempered by limitations in current diagnostic methods since amplification technologies do not necessarily confirm live pathogen and may be subject to considerable laboratory variation. Some laboratory methods may not exclude commensal microbes. Concurrent serodiagnoses have long been of concern for accuracy in these contexts. Presumed virus co-infections are not specific to COVID-19. The association of influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 in co-infection has been considerably variable during influenza season. Other respiratory virus co-infections have generally occurred in less than 10% of COVID-19 patients. Early COVID-19 disease is more commonly associated with bacterial co-pathogens that typically represent usual respiratory micro-organisms. Late infections, especially among severe clinical presentations, are more likely to be associated with nosocomial or opportunistic pathogens given the influence of treatments that can include antibiotics, antivirals, immunomodulating agents, blood products, immunotherapy, steroids, and invasive procedures. As anticipated, hospital care carries risk for multi-resistant bacteria. Overall, co-pathogen identification is linked with longer hospital stay, greater patient complexity, and adverse outcomes. As for other viral infections, a general reduction in the use of empiric antibiotic treatment is warranted. Further insight into co-infections with COVID-19 will contribute overall to effective antimicrobial therapies and disease control.

Emergency Nursing Care of Patients With Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 is the disease caused by the novel coronavirus originally from Wuhan, China. Its pathophysiology is poorly understood, but it is known to be contagious and deadly. Multiple symptoms and complications from the disease have been described, with the most common complaints being respiratory. Nursing care of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 is largely supportive, but it should include a strong focus on mitigating the spread of infection to staff, other patients, and the community.