Objectives:: We aimed to evaluate the role of rapid serological tests in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods:: This retrospective study enrolled 16 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reactionconfirmed symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and 58 COVID-19 negative patients at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-month period. Serial serum samples were collected and tested for antibody response using four point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) (ALLTEST 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test). Time-dependent detection sensitivity and timeliness of seroconversion were determined and compared between the four POC rapid tests. Results:: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the four tests for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after 3 weeks of symptom onset were 100% and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the rapid tests used for detection of IgM and IgG separately and those used for detection of combined total antibody (mainly IgM/IgG). There was no significant difference between the four POC rapid tests in terms of time required for determining seroconversion of COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia demonstrated shorter seroconversion time than those without pneumonia. Conclusion:: Though the POC antibody rapid tests based on LFIA showed reliable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, the results of these tests should be interpreted and applied appropriately in the context of antibody dynamic of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 patients complicated with pneumonia exhibited earlier anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response than COVID-19 patients without pneumonia.

This multicenter, retrospective study included 346 serum samples from 74 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 194 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the performance of five anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests, i.e. two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs): Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Test) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Test), and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs): Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Test), ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (ASK Test), and Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Test). We found high diagnostic sensitivities (%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Roche Test (97.4%, 93.4–99.0%), Abbott Test (94.0%, 89.1–96.8%), Wondfo Test (91.4%, 85.8–94.9%), ASK Test (97.4%, 93.4–99.0%), and Dynamiker Test (90.1%, 84.3–94.0%) after >21 days of symptom onset. Meanwhile, the diagnostic specificity was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.3–99.7%) for the Roche Test, 97.9% (95% CI, 94.8–99.2%) for the Abbott Test, and 100.0% (95% CI, 98.1–100.0%) for the three LFIAs. Cross-reactivity was observed in sera containing anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgG/IgM antibodies and autoantibodies. No difference was observed in the time to seroconversion detection of the five serological tests. Specimens from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia demonstrated a shorter seroconversion time and higher chemiluminescent signal than those without pneumonia. Our data suggested that understanding the dynamic antibody response after COVID-19 infection and performance characteristics of different serological test are crucial for the appropriate interpretation of serological test result for the diagnosis and risk assessment of patient with COVID-19 infection.

Objectives To determine the association of neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) with bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and patient outcomes of out of hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) in an Asian metropolitan area. Methods We performed a retrospective study in a prospectively collected cohort from the Utstein registry of adult non-traumatic OHCAs in Taipei, Taiwan. Average real estate value was assessed as the first proxy of SES. Twelve administrative districts in Taipei City were categorized into low versus high SES areas to test the association. The primary outcome was bystander-initiated CPR, and the secondary outcome was patient survival status. Factors associated with bystander-initiated CPR were adjusted for in multivariate analysis. The mean household income was assessed as the second proxy of SES to validate the association. Results From January 1, 2008 to December 30, 2009, 3573 OHCAs received prehospital resuscitation in the community. Among these, 617 (17.3%) cases received bystander CPR. The proportion of bystander CPR in low-SES vs. high-SES areas was 14.5% vs. 19.6% (p < 0.01). Odds ratio of receiving bystander-initiated CPR in low-SES areas was 0.72 (95% confidence interval: [0.60–0.88]) after adjusting for age, gender, witnessed status, public collapse, and OHCA unrecognized by the online dispatcher. Survival to discharge rate was significantly lower in low-SES areas vs. high-SES areas (4.3% vs. 6.8%; p < 0.01). All results above remained consistent in the analyses by mean household income. Conclusions Patients who experienced an OHCA in low-SES areas were less likely to receive bystander-initiated CPR, and demonstrated worse survival outcomes.

Background Frontline health care workers, including physicians, are at high risk of contracting coronavirus disease (COVID-19) owing to their exposure to patients suspected of having COVID-19. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and feasibility of a double triage and telemedicine protocol in improving infection control in the emergency department (ED). Methods In this retrospective study, we recruited patients aged ≥20 years referred to the ED of the National Taiwan University Hospital between March 1 and April 30, 2020. A double triage and telemedicine protocol was developed to triage suggested COVID-19 cases and minimize health workers’ exposure to this disease. We categorized patients attending video interviews into a telemedicine group and patients experiencing face-to-face interviews into a conventional group. A questionnaire was used to assess how patients perceived the quality of the interviews and their communication with physicians as well as perceptions of stress, discrimination, and privacy. Each question was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Physicians’ total exposure time and total evaluation time were treated as primary outcomes, and the mean scores of the questions were treated as secondary outcomes. Results The final sample included 198 patients, including 93 cases (47.0%) in the telemedicine group and 105 cases (53.0%) in the conventional group. The total exposure time in the telemedicine group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional group (4.7 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was significantly longer than that in the conventional group (12.2 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001). After controlling for potential confounders, the total exposure time in the telemedicine group was 4.6 minutes shorter than that in the conventional group (95% CI −5.7 to −3.5, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was 2.8 minutes longer than that in the conventional group (95% CI −1.6 to −4.0, P<.001). The mean scores of the patient questionnaire were high in both groups (4.5/5 to 4.7/5 points). Conclusions The implementation of the double triage and telemedicine protocol in the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic has high potential to improve infection control.

No abstract