Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 9.417
Filtrar
1.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(6): 189-192, 2021 Feb 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33571172

RESUMO

At its October 2020 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the 2021 Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger. After Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years at its December 12, 2020, meeting (1). In addition, ACIP approved an amendment to include COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in the child and adolescent immunization schedule. After Emergency Use Authorization of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine by FDA, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years at its December 19, 2020, emergency meeting (2).


Assuntos
Imunização/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Vacinas/administração & dosagem , Adolescente , Comitês Consultivos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Humanos , Esquemas de Imunização , Lactente , Estados Unidos
2.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(6): 193-196, 2021 Feb 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33571173

RESUMO

At its October 2020 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* approved the Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2021. After the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years at its December 12, 2020, emergency meeting (1). In addition, ACIP approved an amendment to include COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in the child and adolescent and adult immunization schedules. After Emergency Use Authorization of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years at its December 19, 2020, emergency meeting (2).


Assuntos
Imunização/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Vacinas/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Comitês Consultivos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humanos , Esquemas de Imunização , Estados Unidos
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(5): 178-182, 2021 Feb 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33539332

RESUMO

Residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), because they live and work in congregate settings, are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). In particular, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), LTCFs that provide skilled nursing care and rehabilitation services for persons with complex medical needs, have been documented settings of COVID-19 outbreaks (3). In addition, residents of LTCFs might be at increased risk for severe outcomes because of their advanced age or the presence of underlying chronic medical conditions (4). As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that residents and staff members of LTCFs be offered vaccination in the initial COVID-19 vaccine allocation phase (Phase 1a) in the United States (5). In December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program* to facilitate on-site vaccination of residents and staff members at enrolled LTCFs. To evaluate early receipt of vaccine during the first month of the program, the number of eligible residents and staff members in enrolled SNFs was estimated using resident census data from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN†) and staffing data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll-Based Journal.§ Among 11,460 SNFs with at least one vaccination clinic during the first month of the program (December 18, 2020-January 17, 2021), an estimated median of 77.8% of residents (interquartile range [IQR] = 61.3%- 93.1%) and a median of 37.5% (IQR = 23.2%- 56.8%) of staff members per facility received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. The program achieved moderately high coverage among residents; however, continued development and implementation of focused communication and outreach strategies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among staff members in SNFs and other long-term care settings.


Assuntos
/administração & dosagem , Farmácia/organização & administração , Parcerias Público-Privadas , Instituições de Cuidados Especializados de Enfermagem/organização & administração , Cobertura Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , /prevenção & controle , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humanos , Assistência de Longa Duração , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(7): 254-257, 2021 Feb 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33600386

RESUMO

Universal masking is one of the prevention strategies recommended by CDC to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). As of February 1, 2021, 38 states and the District of Columbia had universal masking mandates. Mask wearing has also been mandated by executive order for federal property* as well as on domestic and international transportation conveyances.† Masks substantially reduce exhaled respiratory droplets and aerosols from infected wearers and reduce exposure of uninfected wearers to these particles. Cloth masks§ and medical procedure masks¶ fit more loosely than do respirators (e.g., N95 facepieces). The effectiveness of cloth and medical procedure masks can be improved by ensuring that they are well fitted to the contours of the face to prevent leakage of air around the masks' edges. During January 2021, CDC conducted experimental simulations using pliable elastomeric source and receiver headforms to assess the extent to which two modifications to medical procedure masks, 1) wearing a cloth mask over a medical procedure mask (double masking) and 2) knotting the ear loops of a medical procedure mask where they attach to the mask's edges and then tucking in and flattening the extra material close to the face (knotted and tucked masks), could improve the fit of these masks and reduce the receiver's exposure to an aerosol of simulated respiratory droplet particles of the size considered most important for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. The receiver's exposure was maximally reduced (>95%) when the source and receiver were fitted with modified medical procedure masks. These laboratory-based experiments highlight the importance of good fit to optimize mask performance. Until vaccine-induced population immunity is achieved, universal masking is a highly effective means to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2** when combined with other protective measures, such as physical distancing, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces, and good hand hygiene. Innovative efforts to improve the fit of cloth and medical procedure masks to enhance their performance merit attention.


Assuntos
/prevenção & controle , Máscaras/normas , /epidemiologia , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humanos , Máscaras/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
5.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e25108, 2021 02 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33497351

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a national public health protection agency in the United States. With the escalating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on society in the United States and around the world, the CDC has become one of the focal points of public discussion. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the topics and their overarching themes emerging from the public COVID-19-related discussion about the CDC on Twitter and to further provide insight into public's concerns, focus of attention, perception of the CDC's current performance, and expectations from the CDC. METHODS: Tweets were downloaded from a large-scale COVID-19 Twitter chatter data set from March 11, 2020, when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, to August 14, 2020. We used R (The R Foundation) to clean the tweets and retain tweets that contained any of five specific keywords-cdc, CDC, centers for disease control and prevention, CDCgov, and cdcgov-while eliminating all 91 tweets posted by the CDC itself. The final data set included in the analysis consisted of 290,764 unique tweets from 152,314 different users. We used R to perform the latent Dirichlet allocation algorithm for topic modeling. RESULTS: The Twitter data generated 16 topics that the public linked to the CDC when they talked about COVID-19. Among the topics, the most discussed was COVID-19 death counts, accounting for 12.16% (n=35,347) of the total 290,764 tweets in the analysis, followed by general opinions about the credibility of the CDC and other authorities and the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines, with over 20,000 tweets for each. The 16 topics fell into four overarching themes: knowing the virus and the situation, policy and government actions, response guidelines, and general opinion about credibility. CONCLUSIONS: Social media platforms, such as Twitter, provide valuable databases for public opinion. In a protracted pandemic, such as COVID-19, quickly and efficiently identifying the topics within the public discussion on Twitter would help public health agencies improve the next-round communication with the public.


Assuntos
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Mineração de Dados , Opinião Pública , Mídias Sociais , Comunicação , Humanos , Pandemias , Saúde Pública , Política Pública , Estados Unidos
8.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(2): 36-39, 2021 Jan 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33444295

RESUMO

CDC continually evaluates its Emergency Management Program (EMP) activities, including Incident Management System (IMS) activations, use of EMP functions (referred to as EMP utilizations), and exercises, to ensure that the agency is ready to respond to infectious disease outbreaks, disasters (human-made or natural), and security events. Such evaluation not only documents baseline preparedness and response activities during a selected analytical period, but also highlights significant EMP actions that can guide and inform future emergency operations. To characterize EMP activities that occurred during January 1, 2013-December 31, 2018, CDC conducted a retrospective analysis of operational activity logs. The results showed 253 domestic (U.S. states and territories) and international EMP activities, including 12 IMS activations, 147 EMP utilizations, and 94 exercises. Infectious diseases were the most common threat among both IMS activations (58%) and EMP utilizations (52%). CDC responded to the 2014 Ebola epidemic and the 2016 Zika outbreak; each response lasted approximately 2 years and required extended collaboration with domestic and international partners. Understanding the trends in EMP activities, including knowing the most common threats, aids CDC in allocating resources and focusing preparedness efforts. In 2013, CDC became the first federal agency to receive full agency-wide accreditation by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) in recognition of CDC's commitment to preparedness and its ability to respond to domestic and global public health threats. CDC received EMAP reaccreditation in December 2018 (1,2).


Assuntos
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/organização & administração , Cooperação Internacional , Humanos , Estados Unidos
10.
JCO Clin Cancer Inform ; 5: 24-29, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33411623

RESUMO

Cancer surveillance is a field focused on collection of data to evaluate the burden of cancer and apply public health strategies to prevent and control cancer in the community. A key challenge facing the cancer surveillance community is the number of manual tasks required to collect cancer surveillance data, thereby resulting in possible delays in analysis and use of the information. To modernize and automate cancer data collection and reporting, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning, developing, and piloting a cancer surveillance cloud-based computing platform (CS-CBCP) with standardized electronic reporting from laboratories and health-care providers. With this system, automation of the cancer case collection process and access to real-time cancer case data can be achieved, which could not be done before. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the importance of continuity of operations plans, and the CS-CBCP has the potential to provide such a platform suitable for remote operations of central cancer registries.


Assuntos
Computação em Nuvem , Coleta de Dados/métodos , Gerenciamento de Dados/métodos , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Automação , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Sistemas Computacionais , Monitoramento Epidemiológico , Política de Saúde , Humanos , Sistema de Registros , Estados Unidos
11.
Obstet Gynecol ; 137(3): 408-414, 2021 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33370015

RESUMO

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have begun to be distributed across the United States and to be offered initially to priority groups including health care personnel and persons living in long-term care facilities. Guidance regarding whether pregnant persons should receive a COVID-19 vaccine is needed. Because pregnant persons were excluded from the initial phase 3 clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, limited data are available on their efficacy and safety during pregnancy. After developmental and reproductive toxicology studies are completed, some companies are expected to conduct clinical trials in pregnant persons. Until then, pregnant persons and their obstetricians will need to use available data to weigh the benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccines. Issues to be considered when counseling pregnant persons include data from animal studies and inadvertently exposed pregnancies during vaccine clinical trials when available, potential risks to pregnancy of vaccine reactogenicity, timing of vaccination during pregnancy, evidence for safety of other vaccines during pregnancy, risk of COVID-19 complications due to pregnancy and the pregnant person's underlying conditions, and risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and potential for risk mitigation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have each issued guidance supportive of offering COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant persons. As additional information from clinical trials and from data collected on vaccinated pregnant persons becomes available, it will be critical for obstetricians to keep up to date with this information.


Assuntos
/prevenção & controle , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/prevenção & controle , /transmissão , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Feminino , Humanos , Transmissão Vertical de Doença Infecciosa , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Gravidez , Sociedades Médicas , Estados Unidos , Vacinação
13.
J Ambul Care Manage ; 44(1): 71-75, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33165121

RESUMO

A significant portion of the U.S. population may experience vaccine hesitancy of a new COVID-19 vaccine, which poses dangers to both the individual and their community, since exposure to a contagious disease places the person at risk, and individuals are far more likely to spread the disease to others if they do not get vaccinated. Many individuals are doubtful, and without the healthcare community, speaking with one voice has led to distrust. Experience from the influenza vaccines have shown vaccine acceptance has not been optimal, and this new vaccine, even though it is not approved, is already showing layperson skepticism compounded by political influences.


Assuntos
/administração & dosagem , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/psicologia , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Informação de Saúde ao Consumidor , Indústria Farmacêutica , Humanos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos
14.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(5152): 1657-1660, 2021 Jan 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33382671

RESUMO

The first vaccines for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States were authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1) and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in December 2020.* However, demand for COVID-19 vaccines is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national COVID-19 vaccination program. ACIP advises CDC on population groups and circumstances for vaccine use.† On December 1, ACIP recommended that 1) health care personnel§ and 2) residents of long-term care facilities¶ be offered COVID-19 vaccination first, in Phase 1a of the vaccination program (2). On December 20, 2020, ACIP recommended that in Phase 1b, vaccine should be offered to persons aged ≥75 years and frontline essential workers (non-health care workers), and that in Phase 1c, persons aged 65-74 years, persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions, and essential workers not recommended for vaccination in Phase 1b should be offered vaccine.** These recommendations for phased allocation provide guidance for federal, state, and local jurisdictions while vaccine supply is limited. In its deliberations, ACIP considered scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 epidemiology, ethical principles, and vaccination program implementation considerations. ACIP's recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine allocation are interim and might be updated based on changes in conditions of FDA Emergency Use Authorization, FDA authorization for new COVID-19 vaccines, changes in vaccine supply, or changes in COVID-19 epidemiology.


Assuntos
/administração & dosagem , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde , Imunização/normas , Adolescente , Adulto , Comitês Consultivos , Idoso , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
15.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(5152): 1653-1656, 2021 Jan 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33382675

RESUMO

On December 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) vaccine (ModernaTX, Inc; Cambridge, Massachusetts), a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). This vaccine is the second COVID-19 vaccine authorized under an EUA for the prevention of COVID-19 in the United States (2). Vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (100 µg, 0.5 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 1 month (4 weeks) apart. On December 19, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,† using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ Use of all COVID-19 vaccines authorized under an EUA, including the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendations for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (3). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available.


Assuntos
/administração & dosagem , Imunização/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Adolescente , Adulto , Sistemas de Notificação de Reações Adversas a Medicamentos , Comitês Consultivos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , /efeitos adversos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Aprovação de Drogas , Emergências , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , United States Food and Drug Administration , Adulto Jovem
16.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(50): 1917-1921, 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33332295

RESUMO

As school districts across the United States consider how to safely operate during the 2020-21 academic year, CDC recommends mitigation strategies that schools can adopt to reduce the risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). To identify the resources and costs needed to implement school-based mitigation strategies and provide schools and jurisdictions with information to aid resource allocation, a microcosting methodology was employed to estimate costs in three categories: materials and consumables, additional custodial staff members, and potential additional transportation. National average estimates, using the national pre-kindergarten through grade 12 (preK-12) public enrollment of 50,685,567 students, range between a mean of $55 (materials and consumables only) to $442 (all three categories) per student. State-by-state estimates of additional funds needed as a percentage of fiscal year 2018 student expenditures (2) range from an additional 0.3% (materials and consumables only) to 7.1% (all three categories); however, only seven states had a maximum estimate above 4.2%. These estimates, although not exhaustive, highlight the level of resources needed to ensure that schools reopen and remain open in the safest possible manner and offer administrators at schools and school districts and other decision-makers the cost information necessary to budget and prioritize school resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Assuntos
/prevenção & controle , Recursos em Saúde/economia , Instituições Acadêmicas/economia , Adolescente , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Custos e Análise de Custo , Humanos , Instituições Acadêmicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
17.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(50): 1911-1916, 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33332296

RESUMO

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) caused by the bacteria Neisseria gonorrhoeae (gonococcal infections) have increased 63% since 2014 and are a cause of sequelae including pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility and can facilitate transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (1,2). Effective treatment can prevent complications and transmission, but N. gonorrhoeae's ability to acquire antimicrobial resistance influences treatment recommendations and complicates control (3). In 2010, CDC recommended a single 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and a single 1 g oral dose of azithromycin for treatment of uncomplicated gonococcal infections of the cervix, urethra, and rectum as a strategy for preventing ceftriaxone resistance and treating possible coinfection with Chlamydia trachomatis (4). Increasing concern for antimicrobial stewardship and the potential impact of dual therapy on commensal organisms and concurrent pathogens (3), in conjunction with the continued low incidence of ceftriaxone resistance and the increased incidence of azithromycin resistance, has led to reevaluation of this recommendation. This report, which updates previous guidelines (5), recommends a single 500 mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for treatment of uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydial infection has not been excluded, concurrent treatment with doxycycline (100 mg orally twice a day for 7 days) is recommended. Continuing to monitor for emergence of ceftriaxone resistance through surveillance and health care providers' reporting of treatment failures is essential to ensuring continued efficacy of recommended regimens.


Assuntos
Gonorreia/tratamento farmacológico , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Administração Oral , Ceftriaxona/administração & dosagem , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Infecções por Chlamydia/complicações , Infecções por Chlamydia/tratamento farmacológico , Chlamydia trachomatis , Coinfecção/tratamento farmacológico , Doxiciclina/administração & dosagem , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Gonorreia/complicações , Humanos , Injeções Intramusculares , Estados Unidos
18.
BMC Public Health ; 20(1): 1919, 2020 Dec 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33334334

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Emergency risk communication is a critical component in emergency planning and response. It has been recognised as significant for planning for and responding to public health emergencies. While there is a growing body of guidelines and frameworks on emergency risk communication, it remains a relatively new field. There has also been limited attention on how emergency risk communication is being performed in public health organisations, such as acute hospitals, and what the associated challenges are. This article seeks to examine the perception of crisis and emergency risk communication in an acute hospital in response to COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore and to identify its associated enablers and barriers. METHODS: A 13-item Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) Survey, based on the US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) CERC framework, was developed and administered to hospital staff during February 24-28, 2020. The survey also included an open-ended question to solicit feedback on areas of CERC in need of improvement. Chi-square test was used for analysis of survey data. Thematic analysis was performed on qualitative feedback. RESULTS: Of the 1154 participants who responded to the survey, most (94.1%) reported that regular hospital updates on COVID-19 were understandable and actionable. Many (92.5%) stated that accurate, concise and timely information helped to keep them safe. A majority (92.3%) of them were clear about the hospital's response to the COVID-19 situation, and 79.4% of the respondents reported that the hospital had been able to understand their challenges and address their concerns. Sociodemographic characteristics, such as occupation, age, marital status, work experience, gender, and staff's primary work location influenced the responses to hospital CERC. Local leaders within the hospital would need support to better communicate and translate hospital updates in response to COVID-19 to actionable plans for their staff. Better communication in executing resource utilization plans, expressing more empathy and care for their staff, and enhancing communication channels, such as through the use of secure text messaging rather than emails would be important. CONCLUSION: CERC is relevant and important in the hospital setting to managing COVID-19 and should be considered concurrently with hospital emergency response domains.


Assuntos
/terapia , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/normas , Sistemas de Comunicação entre Serviços de Emergência/normas , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/organização & administração , Tratamento de Emergência/normas , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação/métodos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Singapura , Estados Unidos
19.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244271, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33338082

RESUMO

Widespread testing is required to limit the current public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple tests protocols have been authorized by the food and drugs administration (FDA) under an emergency use authorization (EUA). The majority of these protocols are based on the gold-standard RT-qPCR test pioneered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, there is still a widespread lack of testing in the US and many of the clinical diagnostics protocols require extensive human labor and materials that could face supply shortages and present biosafety concerns. Given the need to develop alternative reagents and approaches to provide nucleic-acid testing in the face of heightened demand and potential shortages, we have developed a simplified SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol adapted for its use in research laboratories with minimal molecular biology equipment and expertise. The protocol utilizes TRIzol to purify the viral RNA from different types of clinical specimens, requires minimal BSL-1 precautions and, given its high sensitivity, can be easily adapted to pooling samples strategies.


Assuntos
/métodos , Técnicas de Amplificação de Ácido Nucleico/métodos , RNA Viral/isolamento & purificação , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Células HeLa , Humanos , Nasofaringe/virologia , Orofaringe/virologia , Pandemias , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase em Tempo Real , Saliva/virologia , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA