scholarly journals Effectiveness of Face Masks in Blocking the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a Preliminary Evaluation of Masks Used by SARS-CoV-2-Infected Individuals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinicius M Mello ◽  
Cristiane M. Eller ◽  
Andreza L. Salvio ◽  
Felipe F. Nascimento ◽  
Camila M. Figueiredo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Virus Blocking ◽  
Inner Parts

In 2019, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is trans-mitted via airborne route, caused a new pandemic namely, 'coronavirus disease 2019' (COVID-19). Although it is still debated whether the use of masks can prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, no study has evaluated the virus-blocking efficacy of masks used by patients. We aimed to evaluate this efficacy of masks used by SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Data, masks used, and nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained from these patients. Forty-five paired samples of nasopharyngeal swabs and masks were obtained and processed; the majority of masks were woven. Viral RNAs were amplified using quantitative reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction and detected only on the inner parts of masks. Median cycle threshold (CT) values of swabs and masks were 28.41 and 37.95, respectively. Statistically, there was a difference of ap-proximately 10 CT values between swabs and masks and no significant difference in CT values among different types of masks. There were statistically significant differences in CT values be-tween men and women and symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Our findings suggest the blocking of the transmission of the virus by different types of masks and reinforce the use of masks by both infected and non-infected individuals.

scholarly journals Assessment of Coronavirus in the Conjunctival Tears in Pediatric Patients with Asymptomatic COVID-19 Infection in Sohag Government, Egypt

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-88
Author(s):  
Hany Mahmoud ◽  
Ahmed Radwan ◽  
Amr El Rashidy ◽  
Hesham M. Hefny ◽  
Amal H. Ali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Interventional Study ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Intimate Contact ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Systemic Manifestations ◽  
Polymerase Chain

Objective: The present study aims to evaluate coronavirus shedding in the tears of asymptomatic pediatric COVID-19 positive patients. Methods: A prospective interventional study that included a total of 145 pediatric asymptomatic COVID-19 patients hospitalized from 17th May 2020 to 16th July 2020 in Sohag Tropical Hospital. On admission, all of them were COVID-19 positive detected through nasopharyngeal swab. They were in intimate contact with positive symptomatic COVID-19 patients before testing and admission. Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done for tears samples at an interval of 5 days after admission and twice before discharge. Results: Of the 145 asymptomatic pediatric COVID-19 positive patients, no one showed ocular or systemic manifestations. They were silent carriers. Ten were positive for tears sample on admission. They became negative for nasopharyngeal and tear samples before discharge. Conclusion: Pediatric positive COVID-19 patients can shed coronavirus through their tears. Even among asymptomatic patients, transmission through tears is possible.

scholarly journals SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in an asymptomatic cancer cohort - results and consequences for clinical routine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Marschner ◽  
Stefanie Corradini ◽  
Josefine Rauch ◽  
Richard Zacharias ◽  
Ana Sujic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Prevention Measures ◽  
Medical Systems ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
First Results ◽  
Subsequent Step ◽  
Polymerase Chain

Abstract Background Starting in December 2019, the current pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confronts the world with an unprecedented challenge. With no vaccine or drug being currently available to control the pandemic spread, prevention and PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) testing becomes a crucial pillar of medical systems. Aim of the present study was to report on the first results of the measures taken in a large German Department of Radiation Oncology, including PCR testing of asymptomatic cancer patients. Methods Pandemic-adapted hygiene regulations and prevention measures for patients and staff were implemented. A visiting ban on both wards was implemented from the beginning and medical staff and patients were required to wear face masks at all times. The waiting rooms were rearranged to ensure distance between patients of at least 1.5 meters. Clinical follow up was mainly done by telephone and all patients had to complete a questionnaire regarding symptoms and contacts with COVID-19 patients before entering our department. Educational documents were created for patients to raise awareness of symptoms and avoidance strategies for interactions with other people. Indications for therapy and fractionation schemes were adapted when possible. In a subsequent step, all new asymptomatic patients were tested via nasopharyngeal swab at our screening station shortly before their simulation CT. Results All these measures and implementations have been well accepted. Regarding the PCR testing, only 1 out of 139 asymptomatic patients of our cohort so far tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, reflecting a prevalence of 0.72% in this cancer patient population. Up to this point no staff members was tested positive. The start of the treatment for the PCR-positive patient was deferred for two weeks. Conclusion Due to the pandemic-adapted implementations, our department seems well prepared during this crisis. The initial screening helps to identify asymptomatic COVID-19 patients in order to protect other patients and our staff from infection and the observed PCR prevalence is in line with comparable studies. A regular PCR testing (e.g. twice a week) of all patients and staff would in principle be desirable but is limited due to testing capacities at present.

scholarly journals Retinal microvascular signs in COVID-19

2021 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-318236
Author(s):  
Ralene Sim ◽  
Gemmy Cheung ◽  
Daniel Ting ◽  
Edmund Wong ◽  
Tien Yin Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical History ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Plexiform Layer ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Retinal Microvascular Signs

Background/aimsTo explore if retinal findings are associated with COVID-19 infection.MethodsIn this prospective cross-sectional study, we recruited participants positive for COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal swab, with no medical history. Subjects underwent retinal imaging with an automated imaging device (3D OCT-1 Maestro, Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain colour fundus photographs (CFP) and optical coherence tomographic (OCT) scans of the macula. Data on personal biodata, medical history and vital signs were collected from electronic medical records.Results108 patients were recruited. Mean age was 36.0±5.4 years. 41 (38.0%) had symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI) at presentation. Of 216 eyes, 25 (11.6%) had retinal signs—eight (3.7%) with microhaemorrhages, six (2.8%) with retinal vascular tortuosity and two (0.93%) with cotton wool spots (CWS). 11 eyes (5.1%) had hyper-reflective plaques in the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer layer on OCT, of which two also had retinal signs visible on CFP (CWS and microhaemorrhage, respectively). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of retinal signs in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients (12 (15.0%) vs 13 (9.6%), p=0.227). Patients with retinal signs were significantly more likely to have transiently elevated blood pressure than those without (p=0.03).ConclusionOne in nine had retinal microvascular signs on ocular imaging. These signs were observed even in asymptomatic patients with normal vital signs. These retinal microvascular signs may be related to underlying cardiovascular and thrombotic alternations associated with COVID-19 infection.

scholarly journals Critical analysis: use of polymerase chain reaction to diagnose leprosy

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flaviane Granero Maltempe ◽  
Vanessa Pietrowski Baldin ◽  
Mariana Aparecida Lopes ◽  
Vera Lúcia Dias Siqueira ◽  
Regiane Bertin de Lima Scodro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Globin Gene ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Reference Laboratory ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Molecular Biology Technique ◽  
Pcr Inhibitor ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Pcr Techniques

ABSTRACT Leprosy is a neglected tropical disease and an important public health problem, especially in developing countries. It is a chronic infectious disease that is caused by Mycobacterium leprae, which has a predilection for the skin and peripheral nerves. Although it has low sensitivity, slit-skin smear (SSS) remains the conventional auxiliary laboratory technique for the clinical diagnosis of leprosy. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a molecular biology technique that holds promise as a simple and sensitive diagnostic tool. In the present study, the performance of two PCR methods, using different targets, PCR-LP and PCR-P, were compared with SSS with regard to leprosy diagnosis in a reference laboratory. M. leprae DNA was extracted from 106 lymph samples of 40 patients who had clinical suspicion of leprosy. The samples were subjected to both PCR techniques and SSS. Amplification of the human b-globin gene was used as PCR inhibitor control. The specificity of both PCR techniques was 100%, and sensitivity was 0.007 and 0.015 µg/ml for PCR-LP and PCR-P, respectively. No significant difference was found between either the PCR-LP or PCR-P results and SSS results (p > 0.05). Although PCR is not yet a replacement for SSS in the diagnosis of leprosy, this technique may be used as an efficient auxiliary tool for early detection of the disease, especially in endemic regions. This strategy may also be useful in cases in which SSS results are negative (e.g., in paucibacillary patients) and cases in which skin biopsy cannot be performed.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of concomitant use of enteral and intravenous sedatives and analgesics in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nayoung Kang ◽  
Mohammed A Alrashed ◽  
Eric M Place ◽  
Phuongthao T Nguyen ◽  
Stephen J Perona ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Ventilation Time ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose To evaluate potential differences in days on mechanical ventilation for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on route of administration of analgesic and sedative medications: intravenous (IV) alone vs IV + enteral (EN). Summary This institutional review board–approved study evaluated ventilation time and fentanyl or midazolam requirements with or without concurrent EN hydromorphone and lorazepam. Patients were included in the study if they were 18 to 89 years old and were admitted to the intensive care unit with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction or antigen test and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours. In total, 100 patients were evaluated, 60 in the IV-only group and 40 in the IV + EN group. There was not a significant difference in ventilation time between the groups (mean [SD], 19.6 [12.8] days for IV + EN vs 15.6 [11.2] days for IV only; P = 0.104). However, fentanyl (2,064 [847] μg vs 2,443 [779] μg; P < 0.001) and midazolam (137 [72] mg vs 158 [70] mg; P = 0.004) requirements on day 3 were significantly higher in the IV-only group, and the increase in fentanyl requirements from day 1 to day 3 was greater in the IV-only group than in the IV + EN group (378 [625] μg vs 34 [971] μg; P = 0.033). Conclusion Addition of EN analgesic and sedative medications to those administered by the IV route did not change the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, but the combination may reduce IV opioid requirements, decreasing the impact of IV medication shortages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document