Table_2_Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serological Diagnostic Tests and Antibody Kinetics in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.docx

Serological testing is recommended to support the detection of undiagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the performance of serological assays has not been sufficiently evaluated. Hence, the performance of six severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binding antibody assays [three chemiluminescence (CLIAs) and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)] and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was analyzed in a total of 988 serum samples comprising 389 COVID-19-positives and 599 COVID-19-negatives. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 54.2 to 56.6% and from 56.3 to 64.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic specificities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 98.2 to 99.8% and from 97.3 to 99.0%, respectively. In the symptomatic group (n = 321), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 14 days after symptom onset. In the asymptomatic group (n = 68), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 21 days after initial RT-PCR detection. In LFIAs, negatively interpreted trace bands accounted for the changes in test performance. Most false-positive results were weak or trace reactions and showed negative results in additional sVNT. For six binding antibody assays, the overall agreement percentages ranged from 91.0 to 97.8%. The median inhibition activity of sVNT was significantly higher in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group (50.0% vs. 29.2%; p < 0.0001). The median times to seropositivity in the symptomatic group were 9.7 days for CLIA-IgG, 9.2 and 9.8 days for two CLIAs-Total (IgM + IgG), 7.7 days for LFIA-IgM, 9.2 days for LFIA-IgG, and 8.8 days for sVNT-IgG, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between the quantitative results of the four binding antibody assays and sVNT with Spearman ρ-values ranging from 0.746 to 0.854. In particular, when using LFIAs, we recommend using more objective interpretable assays or establishing a band interpretation system for each laboratory, accompanied by observer training. We also anticipate that sVNT will play an essential role in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and become the practical routine neutralizing antibody assay.</p

Table_3_Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serological Diagnostic Tests and Antibody Kinetics in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.DOCX

Serological testing is recommended to support the detection of undiagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the performance of serological assays has not been sufficiently evaluated. Hence, the performance of six severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binding antibody assays [three chemiluminescence (CLIAs) and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)] and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was analyzed in a total of 988 serum samples comprising 389 COVID-19-positives and 599 COVID-19-negatives. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 54.2 to 56.6% and from 56.3 to 64.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic specificities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 98.2 to 99.8% and from 97.3 to 99.0%, respectively. In the symptomatic group (n = 321), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 14 days after symptom onset. In the asymptomatic group (n = 68), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 21 days after initial RT-PCR detection. In LFIAs, negatively interpreted trace bands accounted for the changes in test performance. Most false-positive results were weak or trace reactions and showed negative results in additional sVNT. For six binding antibody assays, the overall agreement percentages ranged from 91.0 to 97.8%. The median inhibition activity of sVNT was significantly higher in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group (50.0% vs. 29.2%; p < 0.0001). The median times to seropositivity in the symptomatic group were 9.7 days for CLIA-IgG, 9.2 and 9.8 days for two CLIAs-Total (IgM + IgG), 7.7 days for LFIA-IgM, 9.2 days for LFIA-IgG, and 8.8 days for sVNT-IgG, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between the quantitative results of the four binding antibody assays and sVNT with Spearman ρ-values ranging from 0.746 to 0.854. In particular, when using LFIAs, we recommend using more objective interpretable assays or establishing a band interpretation system for each laboratory, accompanied by observer training. We also anticipate that sVNT will play an essential role in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and become the practical routine neutralizing antibody assay.</p

Table_4_Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serological Diagnostic Tests and Antibody Kinetics in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.DOCX

Serological testing is recommended to support the detection of undiagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the performance of serological assays has not been sufficiently evaluated. Hence, the performance of six severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binding antibody assays [three chemiluminescence (CLIAs) and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)] and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was analyzed in a total of 988 serum samples comprising 389 COVID-19-positives and 599 COVID-19-negatives. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 54.2 to 56.6% and from 56.3 to 64.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic specificities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 98.2 to 99.8% and from 97.3 to 99.0%, respectively. In the symptomatic group (n = 321), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 14 days after symptom onset. In the asymptomatic group (n = 68), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 21 days after initial RT-PCR detection. In LFIAs, negatively interpreted trace bands accounted for the changes in test performance. Most false-positive results were weak or trace reactions and showed negative results in additional sVNT. For six binding antibody assays, the overall agreement percentages ranged from 91.0 to 97.8%. The median inhibition activity of sVNT was significantly higher in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group (50.0% vs. 29.2%; p < 0.0001). The median times to seropositivity in the symptomatic group were 9.7 days for CLIA-IgG, 9.2 and 9.8 days for two CLIAs-Total (IgM + IgG), 7.7 days for LFIA-IgM, 9.2 days for LFIA-IgG, and 8.8 days for sVNT-IgG, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between the quantitative results of the four binding antibody assays and sVNT with Spearman ρ-values ranging from 0.746 to 0.854. In particular, when using LFIAs, we recommend using more objective interpretable assays or establishing a band interpretation system for each laboratory, accompanied by observer training. We also anticipate that sVNT will play an essential role in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and become the practical routine neutralizing antibody assay.</p

Table_1_Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serological Diagnostic Tests and Antibody Kinetics in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.docx

Serological testing is recommended to support the detection of undiagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the performance of serological assays has not been sufficiently evaluated. Hence, the performance of six severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binding antibody assays [three chemiluminescence (CLIAs) and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)] and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was analyzed in a total of 988 serum samples comprising 389 COVID-19-positives and 599 COVID-19-negatives. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 54.2 to 56.6% and from 56.3 to 64.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic specificities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 98.2 to 99.8% and from 97.3 to 99.0%, respectively. In the symptomatic group (n = 321), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 14 days after symptom onset. In the asymptomatic group (n = 68), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 21 days after initial RT-PCR detection. In LFIAs, negatively interpreted trace bands accounted for the changes in test performance. Most false-positive results were weak or trace reactions and showed negative results in additional sVNT. For six binding antibody assays, the overall agreement percentages ranged from 91.0 to 97.8%. The median inhibition activity of sVNT was significantly higher in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group (50.0% vs. 29.2%; p < 0.0001). The median times to seropositivity in the symptomatic group were 9.7 days for CLIA-IgG, 9.2 and 9.8 days for two CLIAs-Total (IgM + IgG), 7.7 days for LFIA-IgM, 9.2 days for LFIA-IgG, and 8.8 days for sVNT-IgG, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between the quantitative results of the four binding antibody assays and sVNT with Spearman ρ-values ranging from 0.746 to 0.854. In particular, when using LFIAs, we recommend using more objective interpretable assays or establishing a band interpretation system for each laboratory, accompanied by observer training. We also anticipate that sVNT will play an essential role in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and become the practical routine neutralizing antibody assay.</p

Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of rhinorrhea and ground glass opacity in chest imaging as a predictor of viral pneumonia in 310 patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

<p>GGO: ground glass opacity. Area under the curve: (a) rhinorrhea, 0.562 (95% CI, 0.477–0.647); (b) GGO, 0.639 (95% CI, 0.555–0.723); (c) GGO or rhinorrhea, 0.672 (95% CI, 0.592–0.751).</p

Clinical features and outcomes of 310 patients with viral or non-viral community-acquired pneumonia.

<p>Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SDs^a or medians (IQRs)^b and were compared by the Student's t test^a or Mann-Whitney U test^b.</p><p>CURB-65: Confusion-Urea-Respiratory-Blood pressure-65 score, PSI: Pneumonia severity index, ICU: Intensive care unit.</p><p>Clinical features and outcomes of 310 patients with viral or non-viral community-acquired pneumonia.</p

Clinical features, outcomes, laboratory and radiological findings of influenza pneumonia, compared to pneumococcal pneumonia.

<p>Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SDs^a or medians (IQRs)^b and were compared by the Student's t test ^a or Mann-Whitney U test^b</p><p>CURB-65: Confusion-Urea-Respiratory-Blood pressure-65 score, PSI: Pneumonia severity index, GGO: Ground-glass opacity.</p><p>Clinical features, outcomes, laboratory and radiological findings of influenza pneumonia, compared to pneumococcal pneumonia.</p

Univariate and Multivariate analyses for risk factors associated with 30-day mortality in patients with MRSA bacteremia.

<p><b>NOTE</b>. HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; APACHE, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; SCC<i>mec</i> IV/IVa MRSA, MRSA possessing SCC<i>mec</i> type IV or IVa; hetero-VISA, hetero-vancomycin-intermediate <i>S. aureus</i>; MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration.</p>a<p>Continuous variables are expressed as means (±SD).</p>b<p>Statistically significant (<i>P</i>≤0.05).</p

Predictors of Viral Pneumonia in Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia

<div><p>Background</p><p>Viruses are increasingly recognized as major causes of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Few studies have investigated the clinical predictors of viral pneumonia, and the results have been inconsistent. In this study, the clinical predictors of viral pneumonia were investigated in terms of their utility as indicators for viral pneumonia in patients with CAP.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Adult patients (≥18 years old) with CAP, tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for respiratory virus, at two teaching hospitals between October 2010 and May 2013, were identified retrospectively. Demographic and clinical data were collected by reviewing the hospital electronic medical records.</p><p>Results</p><p>During the study period, 456 patients with CAP were identified who met the definition, and 327 (72%) patients were tested using the respiratory virus PCR detection test. Viral pneumonia (n = 60) was associated with rhinorrhea, a higher lymphocyte fraction in the white blood cells, lower serum creatinine and ground-glass opacity (GGO) in radiology results, compared to non-viral pneumonia (n = 250) (p<0.05, each). In a multivariate analysis, rhinorrhea (Odd ratio (OR) 3.52; 95% Confidence interval (CI), 1.58–7.87) and GGO (OR 4.68; 95% CI, 2.48–8.89) were revealed as independent risk factors for viral pneumonia in patients with CAP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative-predictive values (PPV and NPV) of rhinorrhea were 22, 91, 36 and 83%: the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of GGO were and 43, 84, 40 and 86%, respectively.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Symptom of rhinorrhea and GGO predicted viral pneumonia in patients with CAP. The high specificity of rhinorrhea and GGO suggested that these could be useful indicators for empirical antiviral therapy.</p></div

Data_Sheet_1_Associations Between COVID-19 Symptoms and Psychological Distress.docx

Background: Hospital isolation for COVID-19 may cause significant psychological stress. The association between COVID-19 symptoms and psychological symptoms has not been systematically studied. We investigated the effects of telephonic intervention on the relationship between psychological symptoms and COVID-19 symptoms at the time of hospitalization and 1 week later.Method: We screened 461 patients with COVID-19 for psychiatric symptoms from February 29, 2020, to January 3, 2021. In total, 461 patients were evaluated 2 days after admission, and 322 (69.8%) were followed 1 week later. To assess anxiety and depressive symptoms, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was administered to patients once per week. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and item 9 of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-9) were used weekly to assess insomnia and suicidal ideation.Results: Of 461 enrolled patients, we observed clinically meaningful psychological anxiety symptoms (in 75/16.3% of patients), depression (122/26.5%), insomnia (154/33.4%), and suicidal ideation (54/11.7%). Commonly reported COVID-19 symptoms are cough/sputum/sneezing (244, 52.9%), headache/dizziness (98, 21.3%), myalgia (113, 24.5%), and sore throat (89, 19.3%). Compared to baseline, significant improvements were found in anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation at 1 week. No significant group differences in ISI score were observed.Conclusions: COVID-19 symptoms at baseline had a significant and persistent negative impact on anxiety and depression at admission and at 1 week after hospitalization. Early intervention is essential to improve the outcomes of patients with mental illness.</p