Abstract Introduction Although extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a promising second-line therapy in the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), its use is limited by its high cost. This study aims to describe the clinical evolution of patients who underwent ECP therapy for cGVHD and to perform an economic analysis of the therapy Methods This was a case series between 2016 and 2020 describing the clinical response to ECP and a micro-cost analysis of the therapy using time-driven activity-based costing. Results Six patients underwent ECP for corticosteroid-dependent cGVHD The cost per ECP session is 14,960.90 Brazilian reais (BRL), which primarily consists of the ECP kit with an activator (82.78%), followed by the hospital's physical structure (14.66%), human resources (2.48%) and exams/inputs (0.08%). The number of sessions performed ranged from 2 to 42. The total cost of the therapy per patient ranged from BRL 30,000 to 500,000. Conclusion The response of the patient with cGVHD to treatment with ECP was variable. These micro-costing results can be used to develop remuneration and cost control strategies in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation programs, as well as in further economic studies.

Abstract Objective: Changes in the epidemiology of respiratory infections during the restrictions imposed as a response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been reported elsewhere. The present study’s aim was to describe the prevalence of a large array of respiratory pathogens in symptomatic children and adolescents during the pandemic in Southern Brazil. Methods: Hospitalized and outpatients aged 2 months to 18 years with signs and symptoms of acute COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled in the study from May to November 2020 in two hospitals in a large metropolitan area in a Brazilian city. All participants performed a real-time PCR panel assessing 20 respiratory pathogens (three bacteria and 17 viruses). Results: 436 participants were included, with 45 of these hospitalized. Rhinovirus was the most prevalent pathogen (216/436) followed by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, 97/436), with a coinfection of these two viruses occurring in 31/436 participants. The remaining pathogens were found in 24 symptomatic participants (adenovirus, n = 6; Chlamydophila pneumoniae, n = 1; coronavirus NL63, n = 2; human enterovirus, n = 7; human metapneu-movirus, n = 2; Mycoplasma pneumoniae, n = 6). Hospitalization was more common among infants (p = 0.004) and those with pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 (p = 0.001). Conclusion: During the period of social distancing in response to COVID-19, the prevalence of most respiratory pathogens was unusually low. Rhinovirus remained as the main virus co-circulating with SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 in symptomatic children was less associated with hospitalization than with other respiratory infections in children and adolescents.

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the association between obesity and hospitalization in mild COVID-19 adult outpatients in Brazil. Subjects and methods: Adults with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection who sought treatment in two hospital (public and private) emergency departments were prospectively enrolled. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 at inclusion were followed by phone calls at days D7, D14 and D28. Multivariable logistic regression models were employed to explore the association between obesity and other potential predictors for hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,050 participants were screened, and 297 completed the 28-day follow-up and were diagnosed with COVID-19 by RT-PCR. The median age was 37.2 (IQR 29.7-44.6) years, and 179 (60.0%) were female. The duration of symptoms was 3.0 (IQR 2.0-5.0) days, and 10.0 (IQR 8.0-12.0) was the median number of symptoms at inclusion. Ninety-five (32.0%) individuals had obesity, and 233 (78.5%) had no previous medical conditions. Twenty-three participants (7.7%) required hospitalization during the follow-up period. After adjusting, obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI 1.63-4.83, P < 0.001) and older age (OR = 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher risks of hospitalization. Conclusion: Obesity, followed by aging, was the main factor associated with hospital admission for COVID-19 in a young population in a low-middle income country. Our findings highlighted the need to promote additional protection for individuals with obesity, such as vaccination, and to encourage lifestyle changes.

Abstract Objective: to evaluate the accuracy of an antibody point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFI -Wondfo Biotech Co., Guangzhou, China) in a pediatric population. Methods: children and adolescents (2 months to 18 years) with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were prospectively investigated with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR and LFI at the emergency room. RT-PCR was performed at baseline, and LFI at the same time or scheduled for those with less than 7 days of the clinical picture. Overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were assessed, as well as according to the onset of symptoms (7-13 or ≥14 days) at the time of the LFI test. Results: In 175 children included, RT-PCR and LFI were positive in 51 (29.14%) and 36 (20.57%), respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value was 70.6% (95%CI 56.2-82.5), 96.8% (95%CI 91.9-99.1), 90.0% (95%CI 77.2-96.0), and 88.9% (95%CI 83.9-92.5), respectively. At 7-13 and ≥14 days after the onset of symptoms, sensitivity was 60.0% (95%CI 26.2-87.8) and 73.2% (95%CI 57.1-85.8) and specificity was 97.9% (95%CI 88.7-99.9) and 96.1% (95%CI 89.0-99.2), respectively. Conclusion: Despite its high specificity, in the present study the sensitivity of LFI in children was lower (around 70%) than most reports in adults. Although a positive result is informative, a negative LFI test cannot rule out COVID-19 in children.

Os testes sorológicos no local de atendimento (point-of-care) para a infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2 têm sidos utilizados para o diagnóstico da COVID-19. Entretanto, não está plenamente elucidada a acurácia dos testes ao longo do tempo em relação ao início dos sintomas. Nosso objetivo foi de avaliar a acurácia, no local de atendimento, do imunoensaio de fluxo lateral (LFI). Pacientes com ≥ 18 anos de idade que apresentavam sintomas clínicos sugestivos de infecção aguda pelo SARS-CoV-2 foram testados uma vez com RT-PCR da nasofaringe e orofaringe, além do LFI. A acurácia do LFI foi avaliada com intervalos periódicos de 3 dias a partir do início dos sintomas. O ponto de corte ótimo foi definido como o número necessário de dias para atingir a melhor sensibilidade e especificidade. Esse ponto foi utilizado também para comparar a acurácia do LFI de acordo com a situação do paciente (ambulatorial ou hospitalizado). Foram incluídos 959 pacientes, dos quais 379 (39,52%) testaram positivos para SARS-CoV-2 pelo RT-PCR e 272 (28,36%) pelo LFI. Foi atingido o melhor desempenho para o LFI com 10 dias a partir do início dos sintomas, com sensibilidade e especificidade de 84,9% (IC95%: 79,8-89,1) e 94,4% (IC95%: 91,0-96,8), respectivamente. Embora a especificidade não tenha sido diferente entre os grupos de pacientes (94,6% vs. 88,9%, p = 0,051), a sensibilidade foi mais alta nos pacientes hospitalizados que nos ambulatoriais (91,7% vs. 82,1%, p = 0,032) no dia 10 depois do início dos sintomas. A melhor sensibilidade do LFI no local de atendimento ocorre 10 dias depois do início dos sintomas, o que pode limitar seu uso no atendimento agudo. A especificidade permanece alta, independentemente do número de dias desde o início dos sintomas.

Point-of-care serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been used for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, their accuracy over time regarding the onset of symptoms is not fully understood. We aimed to assess the accuracy of a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFI). Subjects, aged over 18 years, presenting clinical symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested once by both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal RT-PCR and LFI. The accuracy of LFI was assessed in periodic intervals of three days in relation to the onset of symptoms. The optimal cut-off point was defined as the number of days required to achieve the best sensitivity and specificity. This cut-off point was also used to compare LFI accuracy according to participants’ status: outpatient or hospitalized. In total, 959 patients were included, 379 (39.52%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR, and 272 (28.36%) tested positive with LFI. LFI best performance was achieved after 10 days of the onset of symptoms, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.9% (95%CI: 79.8-89.1) and 94.4% (95%CI: 91.0-96.8), respectively. Although the specificity was similar (94.6% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.051), the sensitivity was higher in hospitalized patients than in outpatients (91.7% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.032) after 10 days of the onset of symptoms. Best sensitivity of point-of-care LFI was found 10 days after the onset of symptoms which may limit its use in acute care. Specificity remained high regardless of the number of days since the onset of symptoms.

Los puestos de atención para pruebas serológicas del SARS-CoV-2 han sido usado para la diagnosis de la COVID-19. No obstante, su precisión a lo largo del tiempo, en lo que respecta a la aparición de los síntomas, no se ha comprendido completamente. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la precisión de un puesto de atención de inmunoanálisis de flujo lateral (LFI). Se hizo pruebas a individuos ≥ 18 años, presentando síntomas clínicos compatibles con una infección aguda de SARS-CoV-2, tanto vía nasofaríngea y orofaríngea RT-PCR, como LFI. La precisión de LFI fue evaluada en intervalos periódicos de 3 días con respecto a la aparición de los síntomas. El punto óptimo de corte se definió como el número de días requerido para alcanzar la mejor sensibilidad y especificidad. Este punto también se usó para comparar la precisión del LFI, según el estatus de los participantes: ambulatorios u hospitalizados. Se incluyeron a 959 pacientes, 379 (39,52%) dieron positivo en las pruebas de SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, y 272 (28,36%) fueron positivos en los LFI. Se alcanzó el mejor rendimiento de los LFI tras 10 días de la aparición de los síntomas, con una sensibilidad y especificidad de un 84,9% (IC95%: 79,8-89,1) y 94,4% (IC95%: 91,0-96,8), respectivamente. A pesar de que la especificidad no fue diferente (94,6% vs. 88,9%, p = 0,051), la sensibilidad fue mayor en pacientes hospitalizados que en los ambulatorios (91,7% vs. 82,1%, p = 0,032) tras 10 días desde la aparición de los síntomas. La mejor sensibilidad LFI del puesto de cuidado se produce tras 10 días de la aparición de los síntomas, lo que quizás limite su uso en el cuidado de urgencias. La especificidad permanece alta independientemente del número de días desde la aparición de los síntomas.

Os testes sorológicos no local de atendimento (point-of-care) para a infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2 têm sidos utilizados para o diagnóstico da COVID-19. Entretanto, não está plenamente elucidada a acurácia dos testes ao longo do tempo em relação ao início dos sintomas. Nosso objetivo foi de avaliar a acurácia, no local de atendimento, do imunoensaio de fluxo lateral (LFI). Pacientes com ≥ 18 anos de idade que apresentavam sintomas clínicos sugestivos de infecção aguda pelo SARS-CoV-2 foram testados uma vez com RT-PCR da nasofaringe e orofaringe, além do LFI. A acurácia do LFI foi avaliada com intervalos periódicos de 3 dias a partir do início dos sintomas. O ponto de corte ótimo foi definido como o número necessário de dias para atingir a melhor sensibilidade e especificidade. Esse ponto foi utilizado também para comparar a acurácia do LFI de acordo com a situação do paciente (ambulatorial ou hospitalizado). Foram incluídos 959 pacientes, dos quais 379 (39,52%) testaram positivos para SARS-CoV-2 pelo RT-PCR e 272 (28,36%) pelo LFI. Foi atingido o melhor desempenho para o LFI com 10 dias a partir do início dos sintomas, com sensibilidade e especificidade de 84,9% (IC95%: 79,8-89,1) e 94,4% (IC95%: 91,0-96,8), respectivamente. Embora a especificidade não tenha sido diferente entre os grupos de pacientes (94,6% vs. 88,9%, p = 0,051), a sensibilidade foi mais alta nos pacientes hospitalizados que nos ambulatoriais (91,7% vs. 82,1%, p = 0,032) no dia 10 depois do início dos sintomas. A melhor sensibilidade do LFI no local de atendimento ocorre 10 dias depois do início dos sintomas, o que pode limitar seu uso no atendimento agudo. A especificidade permanece alta, independentemente do número de dias desde o início dos sintomas.

Point-of-care serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been used for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, their accuracy over time regarding the onset of symptoms is not fully understood. We aimed to assess the accuracy of a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFI). Subjects, aged over 18 years, presenting clinical symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested once by both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal RT-PCR and LFI. The accuracy of LFI was assessed in periodic intervals of three days in relation to the onset of symptoms. The optimal cut-off point was defined as the number of days required to achieve the best sensitivity and specificity. This cut-off point was also used to compare LFI accuracy according to participants’ status: outpatient or hospitalized. In total, 959 patients were included, 379 (39.52%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR, and 272 (28.36%) tested positive with LFI. LFI best performance was achieved after 10 days of the onset of symptoms, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.9% (95%CI: 79.8-89.1) and 94.4% (95%CI: 91.0-96.8), respectively. Although the specificity was similar (94.6% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.051), the sensitivity was higher in hospitalized patients than in outpatients (91.7% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.032) after 10 days of the onset of symptoms. Best sensitivity of point-of-care LFI was found 10 days after the onset of symptoms which may limit its use in acute care. Specificity remained high regardless of the number of days since the onset of symptoms.

Los puestos de atención para pruebas serológicas del SARS-CoV-2 han sido usado para la diagnosis de la COVID-19. No obstante, su precisión a lo largo del tiempo, en lo que respecta a la aparición de los síntomas, no se ha comprendido completamente. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la precisión de un puesto de atención de inmunoanálisis de flujo lateral (LFI). Se hizo pruebas a individuos ≥ 18 años, presentando síntomas clínicos compatibles con una infección aguda de SARS-CoV-2, tanto vía nasofaríngea y orofaríngea RT-PCR, como LFI. La precisión de LFI fue evaluada en intervalos periódicos de 3 días con respecto a la aparición de los síntomas. El punto óptimo de corte se definió como el número de días requerido para alcanzar la mejor sensibilidad y especificidad. Este punto también se usó para comparar la precisión del LFI, según el estatus de los participantes: ambulatorios u hospitalizados. Se incluyeron a 959 pacientes, 379 (39,52%) dieron positivo en las pruebas de SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, y 272 (28,36%) fueron positivos en los LFI. Se alcanzó el mejor rendimiento de los LFI tras 10 días de la aparición de los síntomas, con una sensibilidad y especificidad de un 84,9% (IC95%: 79,8-89,1) y 94,4% (IC95%: 91,0-96,8), respectivamente. A pesar de que la especificidad no fue diferente (94,6% vs. 88,9%, p = 0,051), la sensibilidad fue mayor en pacientes hospitalizados que en los ambulatorios (91,7% vs. 82,1%, p = 0,032) tras 10 días desde la aparición de los síntomas. La mejor sensibilidad LFI del puesto de cuidado se produce tras 10 días de la aparición de los síntomas, lo que quizás limite su uso en el cuidado de urgencias. La especificidad permanece alta independientemente del número de días desde la aparición de los síntomas.