Prospective health surveillance for COVID-19 among health care workers at a university medical center in Taiwan, January to June 2020.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel (HCP) at the front line of care are exposed to occupational hazards that place them at risk for infection, which then endanger patient safety and compromise the capability of the healthcare workforce. As of March 8, 2021 more than 420,170 HCP in US had been infected with SARS CoV-2 with 1388 deaths. In two Taiwan hospitals COVID-19 outbreaks involved HCP and resulted in shutdown of service. This report describes our prospective health surveillance of the HCP and COVID-19 containment measures in a teaching hospital in Taiwan during Jan. 1 through June 30, 2020. METHODS: We prospectively monitored incidents, defined as an HCP with the predefined symptoms, reported by HCP through the web-based system. HCP were managed based on an algorithm that included SARS CoV-2 RNA PCR testing. Infection prevention and control policy/practice were reviewed. RESULTS: This hospital took care of 17 confirmed COVID-19 cases during the study period and the first Case was admitted on January 23, 2020. Among the 14,210 HCP, there were 367 incident events. Of 283 HCP tested for SARS CoV-2, 179 had predefined symptoms. These included 10 HCP who met the national case definition for COVID-19 infection and 169 based on Extended COVID-19 Community Screening program. The other 104 asymptomatic HCP were tested based on hospital policy. All of them had tested negative. CONCLUSION: We attribute our success in preventing COVID-19 infections among HCP to rapid, proactive, decisive, integrated national and institutional response in the early stages of the epidemic.

Seroprevalence Surveys for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Different Populations in Taiwan With Low Incidence of COVID-19 in 2020 and Severe Outbreaks of SARS in 2003.

Accurate detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies provides a more accurate estimation of incident cases, epidemic dynamics, and risk of community transmission. We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence study specifically targeting different populations to examine the performance of pandemic control in Taiwan: symptomatic patients with epidemiological risk and negative qRT-PCR test (Group P), frontline healthcare workers (Group H), healthy adult citizens (Group C), and participants with prior virologically-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) infection in 2003 (Group S). The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 total and IgG antibodies in all participants were determined by Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 test and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, respectively. Sera that showed positive results by the two chemiluminescent immunoassays were further tested by three anti-SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassays and line immunoassay (MIKROGEN recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG). Between June 29 and July 25, 2020, sera of 2,115 participates, including 499 Group P participants, 464 Group H participants, 1,142 Group C participants, and 10 Group S participants, were tested. After excluding six false-positive samples, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence were 0.4, 0, and 0% in Groups P, H, and C, respectively. Cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was observed in 80.0% of recovered SARS participants. Our study showed that rigorous exclusion of false-positive testing results is imperative for an accurate estimate of seroprevalence in countries with previous SARS outbreak and low COVID-19 prevalence. The overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was extremely low among populations of different exposure risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 in Taiwan, supporting the importance of integrated countermeasures in containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 before effective COVID-19 vaccines available.

Multicenter evaluation of four immunoassays for the performance of early diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody responses of patients with pneumonia in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Our study goals were to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies tests and the differences in dynamic immune responses between COVID-19 patients with and without pneumonia. METHODS: We collected 184 serum samples from 70 consecutively qRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients at four participating hospitals from 23 January 2020 to 30 September 2020. COVID-19 pneumonia was defined as the presence of new pulmonary infiltration. Serum samples were grouped by the duration after symptom onset on a weekly basis for antibody testing and analysis. The four immunoassays: Beckman SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (Beckman Test), Siemens (ADVIA Centaur®) SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) (Siemens Test), SBC COVID-19 IgG ELISA (SBC Test) and EliA SARS-CoV-2-Sp1 IgG/IgM/IgA P2 Research (EliA Test) were used for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. RESULTS: The sensitivity of all tests reached 100% after 42 days of symptom onset. Siemens Test, the only test detecting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, had the best performance in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (day 0-7: 77%; day 8-14: 95%) compared to the other 3 serological tests. All tests showed 100% specificity except SBC Test (98%). COVID-19 patients with pneumonia had significantly higher testing signal values than patients without pneumonia (all p values < 0.05, except EliA IgM Test). However, Siemens Test and SBC Test had highest probability in early prediction of the presence of COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Chronological analysis of immune response among COVID-19 patients with different serological tests provides important information in the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and prediction of the risk of pneumonia after infection.

Multicenter evaluation of two chemiluminescence and three lateral flow immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody dynamic responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Taiwan.

This multicenter, retrospective study included 346 serum samples from 74 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 194 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the performance of five anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests, i.e. two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs): Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Test) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Test), and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs): Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Test), ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (ASK Test), and Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Test). We found high diagnostic sensitivities (%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Roche Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), Abbott Test (94.0%, 89.1-96.8%), Wondfo Test (91.4%, 85.8-94.9%), ASK Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), and Dynamiker Test (90.1%, 84.3-94.0%) after >21 days of symptom onset. Meanwhile, the diagnostic specificity was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.3-99.7%) for the Roche Test, 97.9% (95% CI, 94.8-99.2%) for the Abbott Test, and 100.0% (95% CI, 98.1-100.0%) for the three LFIAs. Cross-reactivity was observed in sera containing anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgG/IgM antibodies and autoantibodies. No difference was observed in the time to seroconversion detection of the five serological tests. Specimens from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia demonstrated a shorter seroconversion time and higher chemiluminescent signal than those without pneumonia. Our data suggested that understanding the dynamic antibody response after COVID-19 infection and performance characteristics of different serological test are crucial for the appropriate interpretation of serological test result for the diagnosis and risk assessment of patient with COVID-19 infection.

A Double Triage and Telemedicine Protocol to Optimize Infection Control in an Emergency Department in Taiwan During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Frontline health care workers, including physicians, are at high risk of contracting coronavirus disease (COVID-19) owing to their exposure to patients suspected of having COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and feasibility of a double triage and telemedicine protocol in improving infection control in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In this retrospective study, we recruited patients aged ≥20 years referred to the ED of the National Taiwan University Hospital between March 1 and April 30, 2020. A double triage and telemedicine protocol was developed to triage suggested COVID-19 cases and minimize health workers' exposure to this disease. We categorized patients attending video interviews into a telemedicine group and patients experiencing face-to-face interviews into a conventional group. A questionnaire was used to assess how patients perceived the quality of the interviews and their communication with physicians as well as perceptions of stress, discrimination, and privacy. Each question was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Physicians' total exposure time and total evaluation time were treated as primary outcomes, and the mean scores of the questions were treated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The final sample included 198 patients, including 93 cases (47.0%) in the telemedicine group and 105 cases (53.0%) in the conventional group. The total exposure time in the telemedicine group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional group (4.7 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was significantly longer than that in the conventional group (12.2 minutes vs 8.9 minutes, P<.001). After controlling for potential confounders, the total exposure time in the telemedicine group was 4.6 minutes shorter than that in the conventional group (95% CI -5.7 to -3.5, P<.001), whereas the total evaluation time in the telemedicine group was 2.8 minutes longer than that in the conventional group (95% CI -1.6 to -4.0, P<.001). The mean scores of the patient questionnaire were high in both groups (4.5/5 to 4.7/5 points). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the double triage and telemedicine protocol in the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic has high potential to improve infection control.

Four point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for diagnosis of COVID-19 and for assessing dynamics of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the role of rapid serological tests in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 16 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and 58 COVID-19 negative patients at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-month period. Serial serum samples were collected and tested for antibody response using four point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) (ALLTEST 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test). Time-dependent detection sensitivity and timeliness of seroconversion were determined and compared between the four POC rapid tests. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the four tests for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after 3 weeks of symptom onset were 100% and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the rapid tests used for detection of IgM and IgG separately and those used for detection of combined total antibody (mainly IgM/IgG). There was no significant difference between the four POC rapid tests in terms of time required for determining seroconversion of COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia demonstrated shorter seroconversion time than those without pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Though the POC antibody rapid tests based on LFIA showed reliable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, the results of these tests should be interpreted and applied appropriately in the context of antibody dynamic of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 patients complicated with pneumonia exhibited earlier anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response than COVID-19 patients without pneumonia.