See Covering the Cover synopsis on page 4.BACKGROUND & AIMS: Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has been characterized by fever, respiratory, and gastrointestinal symptoms as well as shedding of virus RNA into feces. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published gastrointestinal symptoms and detection of virus in stool and also summarized data from a cohort of patients with COVID-19 in Hong Kong. METHODS: We collected data from the cohort of patients with COVID-19 in Hong Kong (N ¼ 59; diagnosis from February 2 through February 29, 2020),and searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and 3 Chinese databases through March 11, 2020, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We analyzed pooled data on the prevalence of overall and individual gastrointestinal symptoms (loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain or discomfort) using a random effects model. RESULTS: Among the 59 patients with COVID-19 in Hong Kong, 15 patients (25.4%) had gastrointestinal symptoms, and 9 patients (15.3%) had stool that tested positive for virus RNA. Stool viral RNA was detected in 38.5% and 8.7% among those with and without diarrhea, respectively (P ¼ .02). The median fecal viral load was 5.1 log 10 copies per milliliter in patients with diarrhea vs 3.9 log 10 copies per milliliter in patients without diarrhea (P ¼ .06). In a meta-analysis of 60 studies comprising 4243 patients, the pooled prevalence of all gastrointestinal symptoms was 17.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.3-24.5); 11.8% of patients with nonsevere COVID-19 had gastrointestinal symptoms (95% CI, 4.1-29.1), and 17.1% of patients with severe COVID-19 had gastrointestinal symptoms (95% CI, 6.9-36.7). In the meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of stool samples that were positive for virus RNA was 48.1% (95% CI, 38.3-57.9); of these samples, 70.3%Gastroenterology 2020;159:81-95 CLINICAL AT of those collected after loss of virus from respiratory specimens tested positive for the virus (95% CI, 49.6-85.1). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from the Hong Kong cohort of patients with COVID-19 and a meta-analysis of findings from publications, we found that 17.6% of patients with COVID-19 had gastrointestinal symptoms. Virus RNA was detected in stool samples from 48.1% patients, even in stool collected after respiratory samples had negative test results. Health care workers should therefore exercise caution in collecting fecal samples or performing endoscopic procedures in patients with COVID-19, even during patient recovery.

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website.Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre -including this research content -immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

Background A cruise ship is a closed-off environment that simulates the basic functioning of a city in terms of living conditions and interpersonal interactions. Thus, the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was quarantined because of an onboard outbreak of COVID-19 in February, 2020, provides an opportunity to define the shedding pattern of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and patient antibody responses before and after the onset of symptoms. MethodsWe recruited adult (≥18 years) passengers from Hong Kong who had been on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship docked in Yokohama, Japan in February, 2020. All participants had been found to be negative for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR 4 days before disembarking and were transferred to further quarantine in a public estate in Hong Kong, where they were recruited. Participants were prospectively screened by quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal and throat swabs, and serum IgG and IgM against internal nucleoprotein and the surface spike receptor-binding protein (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (upon entering quarantine) and on days 4, 8, and 12 of quarantine. Findings On Feb 22, 2020, 215 adults were recruited, of whom nine (4%; 95% CI 2-8) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR or serology and were hospitalised. Of these nine patients, nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR was positive in eight patients (89%; 57-99) at baseline. All nine patients were positive for anti-RBD IgG by day 8. Eight (89%; 57-99) were simultaneously positive for nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR and anti-RBD IgG. One patient who was positive for anti-RBD IgG and had a negative viral load had multifocal peripheral ground-glass changes on high-resolution CT that were typical of COVID-19. Five patients (56%; 27-81) with ground-glass changes on high-resolution CT were found to have higher anti-nucleoprotein-IgG OD values on day 8 and 12 and anti-RBD IgG OD value on day 12 than patients without ground-glass changes. Six (67%; 35-88) patients remained asymptomatic throughout the 14-day quarantine period. Interpretation Patients with COVID-19 can develop asymptomatic lung infection with viral shedding and those with evidence of pneumonia on imaging tend to have an increased antibody response. Positive IgG or IgM confirmed infection of COVID-19 in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. A combination of RT-PCR and serology should be implemented for case finding and contact tracing to facilitate early diagnosis, prompt isolation, and treatment.

Background The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on the healthcare system worldwide. Diagnostic testing remained one of the limiting factors for early identification and isolation of infected patients. This study aimed to evaluate posterior oropharyngeal saliva (POPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection among patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Methods The laboratory information system was searched retrospectively for all respiratory specimens and POPS requested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between Feb 1, 2020 and Apr 15, 2020. The agreement and diagnostic performance of POPS against NPsp were evaluated. Results A total of 13772 specimens were identified during the study period, including 2130 POPS and 8438 NPsp. Two hundred and twenty-nine same-day POPS-NPsp paired were identified with POPS and NPsp positivity of 61.5% (95% CI [55.1–67.6%]) and 53.3% (95% CI [46.8–59.6%]). The overall, negative and positive percent agreement were 76.0% (95% CI [70.2–80.9%]), 65.4% (95% CI [55.5–74.2%]), 85.2% (95% CI [77.4–90.8%]). Better positive percent agreement was observed in POPS-NPsp obtained within seven days (96.6%, 95% CI [87.3–99.4%]) compared with after seven days of symptom onset (75.0%, 95% CI [61.4–85.2%)). Among the 104 positive pairs, the mean difference in Cp value was 0.26 (range: 12.63 to -14.74), with an overall higher Cp value in NPsp (Pearson coefficient 0.579). No significant temporal variation was noted between the two specimen types. Conclusions POPS is an acceptable alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BackgroundAntibiotic allergy labels are associated with sub-optimal prescribing patterns and poorer clinical outcomes in non-cancer populations, but the effect of labelling on antimicrobial usage in patients with cancer is unknown.FindingsA retrospective review of hospitalized patients admitted to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (2010-2012) identified 23 % of cancer patients (n = 198) with an antimicrobial allergy label (AA). Comparison of those with an antimicrobial allergy label to those without demonstrated increased antibiotic use per admission (3 vs. 2, p = 0.01), increased fluoroquinolone use (11 % vs. 6 %, p < 0.05), increased antibiotic course duration (15 vs. 13 days, p = 0.09), higher readmission rates (53 % vs. 28 %, p < 0.001) and poorer concordance with prescribing guidelines (47 % vs. 91 %, p < 0.001). Patients in the AA group on multivariate analysis had a higher number of antibiotics employed, longer duration of antibiotic therapy and higher rate of readmission.ConclusionsAntimicrobial usage, including the use of restricted antibiotics, is higher in patients with cancer. Antibiotic de-labelling strategies in cancer patients must be evaluated to aid antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.