Polymerase-chain reaction testing to prevent hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Shinjuku, an epicenter in Tokyo: The Tokyo Women's Medical University model.

Hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory virus coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is a healthcare challenge. We hypothesized that polymerase chain reaction testing of symptomatic triaged outpatients and all inpatients before hospitalization in Shinjuku, a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epicenter in Tokyo, using the Tokyo Women's Medical University (TMWU) model would be feasible and efficient at preventing COVID-19. This retrospective study enrolled 2981 patients from March to May 2020. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.81% (95% credible interval [CI]: 0.95-3.47%) in triaged symptomatic outpatients, 0.04% (95% CI: 0.0002-0.2%) in scheduled asymptomatic inpatients, 3.78% (95% CI: 1.82-7.26%) in emergency inpatients, and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.49-3.82%) in symptomatic patients. There were no cases of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. This shows that the TWMU model could prevent hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection and is feasible and effective in reducing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the hospitals.

Use of an innovative and non-invasive device for virologic sampling of cough aerosols in patients with community and hospital acquired pneumonia: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The aetiology of lower respiratory tract infections is challenging to investigate. Despite the wide array of diagnostic tools, invasive techniques, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), are often required to obtain adequate specimens. PneumoniaCheckTM is a new device that collects aerosol particles from cough, allowing microbiological analyses. Up to now it has been tested only for bacteria detection, but no study has investigated its usefulness for virus identification. METHODS: In this pilot study we included 12 consecutive patients with pneumonia. After testing cough adequacy via a peak flow meter, a sampling with PneumoniaCheckTM was collected and a BAL was performed in each patient. Microbiological analyses for virus identification were performed on each sample and concordance between the two techniques was tested (sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values), taking BAL results as reference. RESULTS: BAL was considered adequate in 10 patients. Among them, a viral pathogen was identified by PneumoniaCheckTM 6 times, each on different samples, whereas BAL allowed to detect the presence of a virus on 7 patients (14 positivities). Overall, the specificity for PneumoniaCheckTM to detect a virus was 100%, whereas the sensitivity was 66%. When considering only herpes viruses, PneumoniaCheckTM showed a lower sensitivity, detecting a virus in 1/4 of infected patients (25%). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study PneumoniaCheckTM showed a good correlation with BAL for non-herpes virologic identification in pneumonia patients, providing excellent specificity. Further studies on larger population are needed to confirm these results and define its place in the panorama of rapid diagnostic tests for lower respiratory tract infections.