No abstract

Information is the most potent protective weapon we have to combat a pandemic, at both the individual and global level. For individuals, information can help us make personal decisions and provide a sense of security. For the global community, information can inform policy decisions and offer critical insights into the epidemic of COVID-19 disease. Fully leveraging the power of information, however, requires large amounts of data and access to it. To achieve this, we are making steps to form an international consortium, Coronavirus Census Collective (CCC, coronaviruscensuscollective.org), that will serve as a hub for integrating information from multiple data sources that can be utilized to understand, monitor, predict, and combat global pandemics. These sources may include self-reported health status through surveys (including mobile apps), results of diagnostic laboratory tests, and other static and real-time geospatial data. This collective effort to track and share information will be invaluable in predicting hotspots of disease outbreak, identifying which factors control the rate of spreading, informing immediate policy decisions, evaluating the effectiveness of measures taken by health organizations on pandemic control, and providing critical insight on the etiology of COVID-19. It will also help individuals stay informed on this rapidly evolving situation and contribute to other global efforts to slow the spread of disease. In the past few weeks, several initiatives across the globe have surfaced to use daily self-reported symptoms as a means to track disease spread, predict outbreak locations, guide population measures and help in the allocation of healthcare resources. The aim of this paper is to put out a call to standardize these efforts and spark a collaborative effort to maximize the global gain while protecting participant privacy.

Background Tropical Australia has a high incidence of nocardiosis, with high rates of intrinsic antimicrobial resistance. Linezolid, the only antimicrobial to which all local Nocardia species are susceptible, has been recommended in empirical combination treatment regimens for moderate–severe Nocardia infections at Royal Darwin Hospital (RDH) since 2014. We report the safety and efficacy of linezolid use for nocardiosis in this setting. Methods We identified cases through a retrospective review of all RDH Nocardia isolates from December 2014 to August 2018 and included 5 linezolid-treated cases from a previous cohort. Laboratory, demographic, and clinical data were included in the primary analysis of safety and treatment outcomes. Results Between 2014 and 2018, Nocardia was isolated from 35 individuals; 28 (80%) had clinically significant infection and 23 (82%) received treatment. All isolates were linezolid-susceptible. Safety and efficacy were assessed for 20 patients receiving linezolid-containing regimens and 8 receiving nonlinezolid regimens. Median linezolid induction therapy duration was 28 days. Common adverse effects in those receiving linezolid were thrombocytopenia (45%) and anemia (40%). Adverse events prompted discontinuation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole more often than linezolid (40% vs 20%). Linezolid therapeutic drug monitoring was used in 1 patient, with successful dose reduction and outcome. There was no difference in 30-day survival between those treated with linezolid (90%) vs no linezolid (87%). One Nocardia-attributed death occurred during linezolid therapy. Conclusions Linezolid is safe and efficacious in empirical treatment for moderate to severe nocardiosis in a monitored hospital setting, with 100% drug susceptibility and no difference in adverse events or outcomes compared with nonlinezolid regimens.

No abstract

Many unanswered questions remain regarding the role of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in this unfolding COVID-19 pandemic. These include their utility for the diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, past infection or exposure, correlation with immunity and the effective duration of immunity. This study examined the performance of three laboratory based serological assays, EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgG, MAGLUMI 2000 Plus 2019-nCov IgM/IgG and EDI Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) IgM/IgG immunoassays. We evaluated 138 samples from a reference non-infected population and 71 samples from a cohort of 37 patients with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed positive by RT-PCR. The samples were collected at various intervals of 0-45 days post symptoms onset (PSO). Specificity and sensitivity of these assays was 60.9%/ 71.4% (IgA) and 94.2%/63.3% (IgG) for EUROIMMUN; 98.5%/18.4% (IgM) and 97.8%/53.1% (IgG) for MAGLUMI; and 94.9%/22.5% (IgM) and 93.5%/57.1% (IgG) for EDI, respectively. When samples collected 14 days PSO were considered, the sensitivities were 100.0 and 100.0%; 31.0 and 82.8%; 34.5 and 57.1%, respectively. Using estimated population prevalence of 0.1, 1, and 10%, the positive predictive value of all assays remained low. The EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA lacked specificity for acute diagnosis and all IgM assays offered poor diagnostic utility. Seroconversion can be delayed although all patients had seroconverted at 28 days in our cohort with the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Despite this, with specificity of only 94% this assay would not be satisfactory for seroprevalence studies in the general Australian population given this is likely to be currently <1%.