Performance of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Assay with Non-Traditional Specimen Types

During the first two years of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens were the gold standard for clinical diagnostic testing. As information about the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing the pandemic continued to be shared, it was clear that the virus could be detected in other specimen types during an active infection. The University of Louisville Infectious Diseases Laboratory accepted non-traditional specimen types, most without a paired, positive NP result, for research purposes only to support local epidemiology efforts. A real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay originally validated for NP specimens was used for non-traditional specimen types using a variety of specimen preparation methods. Limit of detection (LOD) studies allowed for direct comparison between NP, sputum, and breast milk specimen types. The primary aim of the study was to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 RNA could be detected in different human specimen types. The results showed that the non-traditional specimens were not inherently inhibitory since SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 36 (14.5%) out of 249 non-traditional specimens, and the limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk and sputum was the same as for NP specimens. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in 15 breast milk specimens from mothers with positive SARS-CoV-2 NP results. In addition, a direct comparison study showed that NP specimens performed better than paired nasal specimens. In conclusion, by analyzing real-time RT-PCR test results for these non-traditional specimen types, two benefits were realized. Health care providers gained additional epidemiologic information (since information was not to be used for managing or treating patients), and the laboratory gathered important information about specimen types for which complete method validation studies could be pursued in the future

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries