RESUMO
Purpose: Several cases of symptomatic reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after full recovery from a prior episode have been reported. As reinfection has become an increasingly common phenomenon, an improved understanding of the risk factors for reinfection and the character and duration of the serological responses to infection and vaccination is critical for managing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We described four cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in individuals representing a spectrum of healthy and immunocompromised states, including (1) a healthy 41-year-old pediatrician, (2) an immunocompromised 31-year-old with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, (3) a healthy 26-year-old pregnant woman, and (4) a 50-year-old with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. We performed confirmatory quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and qualitative immunoglobulin M and quantitative IgG testing on all available patient samples to confirm the presence of infection and serological response to infection. Results: Our analysis showed that patients 1 and 2, a healthy and an immunocompromised patient, both failed to mount a robust serologic response to the initial infection. In contrast, patients 3 and 4, with minimal comorbid disease, both mounted a strong serological response to their initial infection, but were still susceptible to reinfection. Conclusion: Repeat episodes of COVID-19 are capable of occurring in patients regardless of the presence of known risk factors for infection or level of serological response to infection, although this did not trigger critical illness in any instance.
RESUMO
Purpose: Respiratory rate is assessed less frequently than other vital signs, and documented respiratory rates are often erroneous. This pilot study compared respiratory rates derived from a wearable biosensor to those derived from capnography. Methods: Emergency department patients with respiratory complaints were enrolled and had capnography via nasal cannula and a wireless, wearable biosensor from Philips applied for approximately one hour. Respiratory rates were obtained from both of these methods. We determined the difference between median respiratory rates obtained from the biosensor and capnography and the proportion of biosensor-derived respiratory rates that were within three breaths/minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates for each patient. A Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the strength of the correlation between mean respiratory rates derived from both methods. Plots of minute-by-minute respiratory rates, per patient, for each monitoring method were shown to two physicians. The physicians identified time periods in which the respiratory rates appeared invalid. The proportion of time with invalid respiratory rates for each patient, for each method, was calculated and averaged. Results: We analyzed data for 17 patients. Median biosensor-derived respiratory rate was 20 breaths/minute (range: 7-40 breaths/minute) and median capnography-derived respiratory rate was 25 breaths/minute (range: 0-58 breaths/minute). Overall, 72.8% of biosensor-derived respiratory rates were within three breaths per minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates. Overall mean difference was 3.5 breaths/minute (±5.2 breaths/minute). Respiratory rates appeared invalid 0.7% of the time for the biosensor and 5.0% of the time for capnography. Conclusion: Our pilot study suggests that the Philips wearable biosensor can continuously obtain respiratory rates that are comparable to capnography-derived respiratory rates among emergency department patients with respiratory complaints.