CSC Expert Consensus on Principles of Clinical Management of Patients With Severe Emergent Cardiovascular Diseases During the COVID-19 Epidemic.

In response to the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, the Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) issued this consensus statement after consulting with 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. The over-arching principles laid out here are the following: 1) Consider the prevention and control of COVID-19 transmission as the highest priority, including self-protection of medical staff; 2) Patient risk assessment of both infection and cardiovascular issues. Where appropriate, preferential use of conservative medical therapeutic approaches to minimize disease spread; 3) At all times, medical practices and interventional procedures should be conducted in accordance with the directives of the infection control department of local hospitals and local health commissions.

Quantifying the roles of vomiting, diarrhea, and residents vs. staff in norovirus transmission in U.S. nursing home outbreaks.

The role of individual case characteristics, such as symptoms or demographics, in norovirus transmissibility is poorly understood. Six nursing home norovirus outbreaks occurring in South Carolina, U.S. from 2014 to 2016 were examined. We aimed to quantify the contribution of symptoms and other case characteristics in norovirus transmission using the reproduction number (REi) as an estimate of individual case infectivity and to examine how transmission changes over the course of an outbreak. Individual estimates of REi were calculated using a maximum likelihood procedure to infer the average number of secondary cases generated by each case. The associations between case characteristics and REi were estimated using a weighted multivariate mixed linear model. Outbreaks began with one to three index case(s) with large estimated REi's (range: 1.48 to 8.70) relative to subsequent cases. Of the 209 cases, 155 (75%) vomited, 164 (79%) had diarrhea, and 158 (76%) were nursing home residents (vs. staff). Cases who vomited infected 2.12 (95% CI: 1.68, 2.68) times the number of individuals as non-vomiters, cases with diarrhea infected 1.39 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.87) times the number of individuals as cases without diarrhea, and resident-cases infected 1.53 (95% CI: 1.15, 2.02) times the number of individuals as staff-cases. Index cases tended to be residents (vs. staff) who vomited and infected considerably more secondary cases compared to non-index cases. Results suggest that individuals, particularly residents, who vomit are more infectious and tend to drive norovirus transmission in U.S. nursing home norovirus outbreaks. While diarrhea also plays a role in norovirus transmission, it is to a lesser degree than vomiting in these settings. Results lend support for prevention and control measures that focus on cases who vomit, particularly if those cases are residents.

Patient Perceptions on Barriers and Facilitators to Accessing Low-acuity Surgery During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the postponement of low-acuity surgical procedures in an effort to conserve resources and ensure patient safety. This study aimed to characterize patient-reported concerns about undergoing surgical procedures during the pandemic. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to patients who had their general and plastic surgical procedures postponed at the onset of the pandemic, asking about barriers to accessing surgical care. Questions addressed dependent care, transportation, employment and insurance status, as well as perceptions of and concerns about COVID-19. Mixed methods and inductive thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients were interviewed. We identified the following patient concerns: contracting COVID-19 in the hospital (46%), being alone during hospitalization (40%), facing financial stressors (29%), organizing transportation (28%), experiencing changes to health insurance coverage (25%), and arranging care for dependents (18%). Nonwhite participants were 5 and 2.5 times more likely to have concerns about childcare and transportation, respectively. Perceptions of decreased hospital safety and the consequences of possible COVID-19 infection led to delay in rescheduling. Education about safety measures and communication about scheduling partially mitigated concerns about COVID-19. However, uncertainty about timeline for rescheduling and resolution of the pandemic contributed to ongoing concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Providing effective surgical care during this unprecedented time requires both awareness of societal shifts impacting surgical patients and system-level change to address new barriers to care. Eliciting patients' perspectives, adapting processes to address potential barriers, and effectively educating patients about institutional measures to minimize in-hospital transmission of COVID-19 should be integrated into surgical care.

Outcomes of elective head and neck confirmed or suspected cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To analyse the complication outcomes of COVID-19 negative patients undergoing elective head and neck surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective case review of all patients undergoing elective head and neck surgery for confirmed or suspected head and neck cancer. RESULTS: There were no mortalities recorded in the cohort of patients analysed. At 30 days, pulmonary complications had occurred in 4 patients (9%). None of these were related to COVID infection. CONCLUSION: With careful pre-operative screening of patients for COVID-19 and post-operative care in a COVID-19 clean ward, head and neck surgery can proceed safely during the epidemic. This data could help to minimise delay in treatment by allowing a greater number of elective head and neck cancer operations to proceed.

COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian single institution's experience and lessons learned by public health residents' workforce.

Methods: We hereby provide a systematic description of the response actions in which the public health residents' workforce was pivotal, in a large tertiary hospital. Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic has posed incredible challenges to healthcare workers worldwide. The residents have been affected by an almost complete upheaval of the previous setting of activities, with a near total focus on service during the peak of the emergency. In our Institution, residents in public health were extensively involved in leading activities in the management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic. Results: The key role played by residents in the response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic is highlighted by the diversity of contributions provided, from cooperation in the rearrangement of hospital paths for continuity of care, to establishing and running new services to support healthcare professionals. Overall, they constituted a workforce that turned essential in governing efficiently such a complex scenario. Conclusions: Despite the difficulties posed by the contingency and the sacrifice of many training activities, Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic turned out to be a unique opportunity of learning and measuring one's capabilities and limits in a context of absolute novelty and uncertainty.

Improving Stroke Care in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Through Simulation: Practice Your Protocols!

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, infectious disease control is of utmost importance in acute stroke treatment. This is a new situation for most stroke teams that often leads to uncertainty among physicians, nurses, and technicians who are in immediate contact with patients. The situation is made even more complicated by numerous new regulations and protocols that are released in rapid succession. Herein, we are describing our experience with simulation training for COVID-19 stroke treatment protocols. One week of simulation training allowed us to identify numerous latent safety threats and to adjust our institution-specific protocols to mitigate them. It also helped our physicians and nurses to practice relevant tasks and behavioral patterns (eg, proper donning and doffing PPE, where to dispose potentially contaminated equipment) to minimize their infectious exposure and to adapt to the new situation. We therefore strongly encourage other hospitals to adopt simulation training to prepare their medical teams for code strokes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prehospital Triage of Acute Stroke Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has broad implications on stroke patient triage. Emergency medical services providers have to ensure timely transfer of patients while minimizing the risk of infectious exposure for themselves, their co-workers, and other patients. This statement paper provides a conceptual framework for acute stroke patient triage and transfer during the COVID-19 pandemic and similar healthcare emergencies in the future.

American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Task Force Recommendations for Resumption of Motility Laboratory Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Task Force recommends that gastrointestinal motility procedures should be performed in motility laboratories adhering to the strict recommendations and personal protective equipment (PPE) measures to protect patients, ancillary staff, and motility allied health professionals. When available and within constraints of institutional guidelines, it is preferable for patients scheduled for motility procedures to complete a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test within 48 hours before their procedure, similar to the recommendations before endoscopy made by gastroenterology societies. COVID-19 test results must be documented before performing procedures. If procedures are to be performed without a COVID-19 test, full PPE use is recommended, along with all social distancing and infection control measures. Because patients with suspected motility disorders may require multiple procedures, sequential scheduling of procedures should be considered to minimize need for repeat COVID-19 testing. The strategies for and timing of procedure(s) should be adapted, taking into consideration local institutional standards, with the provision for screening without testing in low prevalence areas. If tested positive for COVID-19, subsequent negative testing may be required before scheduling a motility procedure (timing is variable). Specific recommendations for each motility procedure including triaging, indications, PPE use, and alternatives to motility procedures are detailed in the document. These recommendations may evolve as understanding of virus transmission and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in the community changes over the upcoming months.

Absence of COVID-19 Infection in Patients Accessing IBD Unit at Humanitas, Milan: Implications for Postlockdown Measures.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of coronavirus disease-19 infection for healthcare professionals and patients in hospitals remains unclear. METHODS: We investigated whether precautions adopted in our inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit have minimized the risks of infection for all patients accessing our facilities in a 1-month period by assessing the rate of coronavirus disease-19 infection in the follow-up period. RESULTS: Three hundred-twenty patients with IBD were included. None were infected from severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 in the follow-up period. None of the IBD team members were infected. DISCUSSION: Neither pharmacological immunosuppression nor access to the hospital seem to be risk factors for infection in patients with IBD.

Managing patient flows in radiation oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic : Reworking existing treatment designs to prevent infections at a German hot spot area University Hospital.

PURPOSE: The described work aimed to avoid cancellations of indispensable treatments by implementing active patient flow management practices and optimizing infrastructure utilization in the radiation oncology department of a large university hospital and regional COVID-19 treatment center close to the first German SARS-CoV­2 hotspot region Heinsberg in order to prevent nosocomial infections in patients and personnel during the pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised year-to-date intervention analyses of in- and outpatient key procedures, machine occupancy, and no-show rates in calendar weeks 12 to 19 of 2019 and 2020 to evaluate effects of active patient flow management while monitoring nosocomial COVID-19 infections. RESULTS: Active patient flow management helped to maintain first-visit appointment compliance above 85.5%. A slight appointment reduction of 10.3% daily (p = 0.004) could still significantly increase downstream planning CT scheduling (p = 0.00001) and performance (p = 0.0001), resulting in an absolute 20.1% (p = 0.009) increment of CT performance while avoiding overbooking practices. Daily treatment start was significantly increased by an absolute value of 18.5% (p = 0.026). Hypofractionation and acceleration were significantly increased (p = 0.0043). Integrating strict testing guidelines, a distancing regimen for staff and patients, hygiene regulations, and precise appointment scheduling, no SARS-CoV­2 infection in 164 tested radiation oncology service inpatients was observed. CONCLUSION: In times of reduced medical infrastructure capacities and resources, controlling infrastructural time per patient as well as optimizing facility utilization and personnel workload during treatment evaluation, planning, and irradiation can help to improve appointment compliance and quality management. Avoiding recurrent and preventable exposure to healthcare infrastructure has potential health benefits and might avert cross infections during the pandemic. Active patient flow management in high-risk COVID-19 regions can help Radiation Oncologists to continue and initiate treatments safely, instead of cancelling and deferring indicated therapies.

ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and the COVID-19 pandemic.

We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (www.esge.com) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (www.esgena.org) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement.

Facility-Wide Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Nursing Homes - Seven U.S. Jurisdictions, March-June 2020.

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network - 13 Academic Medical Centers, April-June 2020.

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Mathematical model describing CoViD-19 in São Paulo, Brazil - evaluating isolation as control mechanism and forecasting epidemiological scenarios of release.

In São Paulo, Brazil, the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (CoViD-19) was confirmed on 26 February, the first death due to CoViD-19 was registered on 16 March, and on 24 March, São Paulo implemented the isolation of persons in non-essential activities. A mathematical model was formulated based on non-linear ordinary differential equations considering young (60 years old or less) and elder (60 years old or more) subpopulations, aiming to describe the introduction and dissemination of the new coronavirus in São Paulo. This deterministic model used the data collected from São Paulo to estimate the model parameters, obtaining R0 = 6.8 for the basic reproduction number. The model also allowed to estimate that 50% of the population of São Paulo was in isolation, which permitted to describe the current epidemiological status. The goal of isolation implemented in São Paulo to control the rapid increase of the new coronavirus epidemic was partially succeeded, concluding that if isolation of at least 80% of the population had been implemented, the collapse in the health care system could be avoided. Nevertheless, the isolated persons must be released one day. Based on this model, we studied the potential epidemiological scenarios of release by varying the proportions of the release of young and elder persons. We also evaluated three different strategies of release: All isolated persons are released simultaneously, two and three releases divided in equal proportions. The better scenarios occurred when young persons are released, but maintaining elder persons isolated for a while. When compared with the epidemic without isolation, all strategies of release did not attain the goal of reducing substantially the number of hospitalisations due to severe CoViD-19. Hence, we concluded that the best decision must be postponing the beginning of the release.

Radiotherapy in Southern Italy at the time of COVID-19: options for radiation oncology units.

INTRODUCTION: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread to many countries and has been declared a global health emergency. Our center is located in the south of Italy where the infection rates were low and the clusters of COVID-19 positive patients were small and inhomogeneous. The aim of this short report is to share our experience as a starting point for the management of the steady state of the pandemic. METHODS: The safety of the patients and department staff required a strict plan to minimize the risk of infection between operators whose absence would have made it impossible to carry out the radiotherapy treatments. The head of the radiotherapy unit and members of the Hospital Crisis Unit have put in place a series of measures to manage the emergency. RESULTS: A "clean" team has been established whose members are kept out of the radiotherapy unit for 2 weeks on rotation. Several separate work areas have been made in order to reduce direct contact between the staff. Each staff member has to wear protective equipment if close contact with patients is required. Before confirming a radiotherapy consult or a follow-up visit, telephone clinical and epidemiological screening is performed by nurses through a questionnaire regarding the presence of respiratory symptoms or eventual social contacts with COVID-19 positive people. Once the patients arrive in the hospital, a triage point at the entrance to the hospital performs a second screening and a temperature check. CONCLUSIONS: This management experience of a radiotherapy unit in Southern Italy could serve as a useful example for the future. In fact, in the steady state of infection many centers may face epidemiologically contagious numbers similar to those that we currently have in our region. These numbers require the maintenance of alert and precautionary measures which in our case seem to have worked.

Infection Prevention Precautions for Routine Anesthesia Care During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

Many health care systems around the world continue to struggle with large numbers of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, while others have diminishing numbers of cases following an initial surge. There will most likely be significant oscillations in numbers of cases for the foreseeable future, based on the regional epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Less affected hospitals and facilities will attempt to progressively resume elective procedures and surgery. Ramping up elective care in hospitals that deliberately curtailed elective care to focus on SARS-CoV-2-infected patients will present unique and serious challenges. Among the challenges will be protecting patients and providers from recurrent outbreaks of disease while increasing procedure throughput. Anesthesia providers will inevitably be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 by patients who have not been diagnosed with infection. This is particularly concerning in consideration that aerosols produced during airway management may be infective. In this article, we recommend an approach to routine anesthesia care in the setting of persistent but variable prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We make specific recommendations for personal protective equipment and for the conduct of anesthesia procedures and workflow based on evidence and expert opinion. We propose practical, relatively inexpensive precautions that can be applied to all patients undergoing anesthesia. Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread primarily by respiratory droplets and aerosols, effective masking of anesthesia providers is of paramount importance. Hospitals should follow the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for universal masking of all providers and patients within their facilities. Anesthesia providers should perform anesthetic care in respirator masks (such as N-95 and FFP-2) whenever possible, even when the SARS-CoV-2 test status of patients is negative. Attempting to screen patients for infection with SARS-CoV-2, while valuable, is not a substitute for respiratory protection of providers, as false-negative tests are possible and infected persons can be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Provision of adequate supplies of respirator masks and other respiratory protection equipment such as powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) should be a high priority for health care facilities and for government agencies. Eye protection is also necessary because of the possibility of infection from virus coming into contact with the conjunctiva. Because SARS-CoV-2 persists on surfaces and may cause infection by contact with fomites, hand hygiene and surface cleaning are also of paramount importance.

Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with unspecific symptoms, but about 5% become critically ill with respiratory failure, septic shock and multiple organ failure. An unknown proportion of infected individuals never experience COVID-19 symptoms although they are infectious, that is, they remain asymptomatic. Those who develop the disease, go through a presymptomatic period during which they are infectious. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically, could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a rapid review to assess (1) the effectiveness of universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no screening and (2) the accuracy of universal screening in people who have not presented to clinical care for symptoms of COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database up to 26 May 2020. We searched Embase.com, the CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Covid-19 Study Register on 14 April 2020. We searched LitCovid to 4 April 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases and in PubMed up to 15 April 2020. We also searched three model repositories (Covid-Analytics, Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study [MIDAS], and Society for Medical Decision Making) on 8 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials, observational studies, or mathematical modelling studies assessing screening effectiveness or screening accuracy among general populations in which the prevalence of SARS-CoV2 is unknown. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After pilot testing review forms, one review author screened titles and abstracts. Two review authors independently screened the full text of studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Abstracts excluded by a first review author were dually reviewed by a second review author prior to exclusion. One review author independently extracted data, which was checked by a second review author for completeness and accuracy. Two review authors independently rated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified form designed originally for economic evaluations for modelling studies. We resolved differences by consensus. We synthesized the evidence in narrative and tabular formats. We rated the certainty of evidence for days to outbreak, transmission, cases missed and detected, diagnostic accuracy (i.e. true positives, false positives, true negatives, false negatives) using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications. Two modelling studies reported on effectiveness of universal screening. Twenty studies (17 cohort studies and 3 modelling studies) reported on screening test accuracy. Effectiveness of screening We included two modelling studies. One study suggests that symptom screening at travel hubs, such as airports, may slightly slow but not stop the importation of infected cases (assuming 10 or 100 infected travellers per week reduced the delay in a local outbreak to 8 days or 1 day, respectively). We assessed risk of bias as minor or no concerns, and certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for very serious indirectness. The second modelling study provides very low-certainty evidence that screening of healthcare workers in emergency departments using laboratory tests may reduce transmission to patients and other healthcare workers (assuming a transmission constant of 1.2 new infections per 10,000 people, weekly screening reduced infections by 5.1% within 30 days). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for high risk of bias (major concerns) and indirectness. No modelling studies reported on harms of screening. Screening test accuracy All 17 cohort studies compared an index screening strategy to a reference reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. All but one study reported on the accuracy of single point-in-time screening and varied widely in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, settings, and methods of measurement. We assessed the overall risk of bias as unclear in 16 out of 17 studies, mainly due to limited information on the index test and reference standard. We rated one study as being at high risk of bias due to the inclusion of two separate populations with likely different prevalences. For several screening strategies, the estimates of sensitivity came from small samples. For single point-in-time strategies, for symptom assessment, the sensitivity from 12 cohorts (524 people) ranged from 0.00 to 0.60 (very low-certainty evidence) and the specificity from 12 cohorts (16,165 people) ranged from 0.66 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For screening using direct temperature measurement (3 cohorts, 822 people), international travel history (2 cohorts, 13,080 people), or exposure to known infected people (3 cohorts, 13,205 people) or suspected infected people (2 cohorts, 954 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.00 to 0.23 (very low- to low-certainty evidence) and specificity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). For symptom assessment plus direct temperature measurement (2 cohorts, 779 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.12 to 0.69 (very low-certainty evidence) and specificity from 0.90 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For rapid PCR test (1 cohort, 21 people), sensitivity was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; very low-certainty evidence). One cohort (76 people) reported on repeated screening with symptom assessment and demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.59; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity of 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies evaluated the accuracy of screening at airports. The main outcomes measured were cases missed or detected by entry or exit screening, or both, at airports. One study suggests very low sensitivity at 0.30 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.53), missing 70% of infected travellers. Another study described an unrealistic scenario to achieve a 90% detection rate, requiring 0% asymptomatic infections. The final study provides very uncertain evidence due to low methodological quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for the effectiveness of screening comes from two mathematical modelling studies and is limited by their assumptions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that screening at travel hubs may slightly slow the importation of infected cases. This review highlights the uncertainty and variation in accuracy of screening strategies. A high proportion of infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others, and some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Further studies need to evaluate the utility of rapid laboratory tests, combined screening, and repeated screening. More research is also needed on reference standards with greater accuracy than RT-PCR. Given the poor sensitivity of existing approaches, our findings point to the need for greater emphasis on other ways that may prevent transmission such as face coverings, physical distancing, quarantine, and adequate personal protective equipment for frontline workers.

Repurposing 0.5% povidone iodine solution in otorhinolaryngology practice in Covid 19 pandemic.

SARS CoV 2 is very much homologous in structure to SARS CoV. Review of literature suggests the in-vitro virucidal action of povidone iodine in SARS CoV and MERS. The oropharynx and nasopharynx are target sites of SARS CoV 2. A significant proportion of COVID 19 sufferers are asymptomatic, but shedding these viral particles, PVP-I has been shown to be a safe therapy when used as a mouthwash or taken nasally or used during ophthalmic surgeries. AIMS: MATERIALS AND METHODS: 0.5% PVP-I solution is prepared from commercially available 10% PVP-I solution. Patients were instructed to put 0.5% PVP-I drops in nose and rinse mouth with gargle prior examinations for 30 s. For endoscopic procedure (nasal and throat) nasal douching and gargling to be started one day prior. Douching and rinsing to be repeated just before procedures. Nasal packing with 0.5% PVP-I along with 4% xylocaine/adrenaline solution, tolerability and any allergic reaction noted. RESULTS: The patient and health care workers tolerated the 0.5%. No allergy was noted. CONCLUSION: We propose the use of 0.5% PVP-I in healthcare workers and their patients to minimise the risk of spread of the disease in addition to the recommended PPE.

Local spikes in COVID-19 cases: Recommendations for maintaining otolaryngology clinic operations.

The Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created an unprecedented economic and public health crisis in the United States. Following efforts to mitigate disease spread, with a significant decline in some regions, many states began reopening their economies. As social distancing guidelines were relaxed and businesses opened, local outbreaks of COVID-19 continue to place person on healthcare systems. Among medical specialties, otolaryngologists and their staff are among the highest at risk for becoming exposed to COVID-19. As otolaryngologists prepare to weather the storm of impending local surges in COVID-19 infections there are several practical measures that can be taken to mitigate the risk to ourselves and our staff.

Proposal of a timing strategy for cholesteatoma surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 infection is an aggressive viral illness with high risk of transmission during otolaryngology examination and surgery. Cholesteatoma is known for its potential to cause complications and scheduling of surgery during the pandemic must be done carefully. The majority of otological surgeries may be classified as elective and postponed at this time (e.g., stapedotomy, tympanoplasty); whereas, others are emergencies (e.g., complicated acute otitis media, complicated cholesteatoma with cerebral or Bezold's abscess, meningitis, sinus thrombosis) and require immediate intervention. What is the ideal time for the surgical management of Cholesteatoma during the COVID-19 pandemic? METHODS: Senior otologic surgeons from six teaching hospitals from various countries affected by the COVID-19 from around the world met remotely to make recommendations on reorganizing schedules for the treatment of cholesteatoma which has a risk of severe morbidity and mortality. The recommendations are based on their experiences and on available literature. RESULTS: Due to the high risk of infecting the surgical staff it is prudent to stop all elective ear surgeries and plan cholesteatoma surgery after careful selection of patients, based on the extent of the disease and available resources. Specific precautions including use of appropriate personal protection equipment should be followed when operating on all patients during the pandemic. To facilitate the decision-making in the management of cholesteatoma, timing for surgery can be divided into two categories with 3 and 2 sub-groups based on disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the timing of surgery of patients with cholesteatoma during the COVID-19 pandemic is lacking. This manuscript contains practical tips on how cholesteatoma surgery can be reorganized during this pandemic.