Publications by authors named "Mitsuki Koh"

6 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Effects of Patient Characteristics on Diagnostic Performance of Self-Collected Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

Emerg Infect Dis 2021 ;27(8):2081-2089

We evaluated the performance of self-collected anterior nasal swab (ANS) and saliva samples compared with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens used to test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the same PCR diagnostic panel to test all self-collected and healthcare worker-collected samples from participants at a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Among 1,076 participants, 51.9% were men, 57.1% were >50 years of age, 81.2% were Black (non-Hispanic), and 74.9% reported >1 chronic medical condition. In total, 8.0% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with nasopharyngeal swab samples, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 59% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 68%. Among participants tested 3-7 days after symptom onset, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 80% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 85%. Sensitivity varied by specimen type and patient characteristics. These findings can help physicians interpret PCR results for SARS-CoV-2.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2708.210667DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8314823PMC
July 2021

Epidemiologic, immunologic, and virus characteristics in patients with paired SARS-CoV-2 serology and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing.

J Infect Dis 2021 Jul 3. Epub 2021 Jul 3.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA.

Background: The natural history and clinical progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections can be better understood using combined serological and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.

Methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs and serum were collected at a single time-point from patients at an urban, public hospital August - November 2020 and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR, viral culture, and anti-Spike pan-Ig antibody testing. Participant demographics and symptoms were collected through interview. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to identify associations between RT-PCR and serology results with presence of viable virus and frequency of symptoms.

Results: Among 592 participants, 129 (21.8%) had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR or serology. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was strongly associated with lack of viable virus (p-value=0.016). COVID-19 symptom frequency was similar for patients testing RT-PCR positive/seronegative and patients testing RT-PCR positive/seropositive. Patients testing RT-PCR positive/seronegative reported headaches, fatigue, diarrhea and vomiting at rates not statistically significantly different from those testing RT-PCR negative/seropositive.

Conclusions: While patients testing SARS-CoV-2 seropositive were unlikely to test positive for viable virus and were therefore low-risk for forward transmission, COVID-19 symptoms were common. Paired SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antibody testing provides more nuanced understanding of patients' COVID-19 status.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiab349DOI Listing
July 2021

Rapid Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Detention Facility, Louisiana, USA, May-June, 2020.

Emerg Infect Dis 2021 Feb 4;27(2):421-429. Epub 2021 Jan 4.

To assess transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a detention facility experiencing a coronavirus disease outbreak and evaluate testing strategies, we conducted a prospective cohort investigation in a facility in Louisiana, USA. We conducted SARS-CoV-2 testing for detained persons in 6 quarantined dormitories at various time points. Of 143 persons, 53 were positive at the initial test, and an additional 58 persons were positive at later time points (cumulative incidence 78%). In 1 dormitory, all 45 detained persons initially were negative; 18 days later, 40 (89%) were positive. Among persons who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 47% (52/111) were asymptomatic at the time of specimen collection; 14 had replication-competent virus isolated. Serial SARS-CoV-2 testing might help interrupt transmission through medical isolation and quarantine. Testing in correctional and detention facilities will be most effective when initiated early in an outbreak, inclusive of all exposed persons, and paired with infection prevention and control.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2702.204158DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7853536PMC
February 2021

Identification of Presymptomatic and Asymptomatic Cases Using Cohort-Based Testing Approaches at a Large Correctional Facility-Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 2020.

Clin Infect Dis 2021 03;72(5):e128-e135

Cermak Health Services, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Correctional and detention facilities are at high risk of experiencing outbreaks. We aimed to evaluate cohort-based testing among detained persons exposed to laboratory-confirmed cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in order to identify presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases.

Methods: During 1-19 May 2020, 2 testing strategies were implemented in 12 tiers or housing units of the Cook County Jail, Chicago, Illinois. Detained persons were approached to participate in serial testing (n = 137) and offered tests at 3 time points over 14 days (day 1, days 3-5, and days 13-14). The second group was offered a single test and interview at the end of a 14-day quarantine period (day 14 group) (n = 87).

Results: 224 detained persons were approached for participation and, of these, 194 (87%) participated in ≥1 interview and 172 (77%) had ≥1 test. Of the 172 tested, 19 were positive for SARS-CoV-2. In the serial testing group, 17 (89%) new cases were detected, 16 (84%) on day 1, 1 (5%) on days 3-5, and none on days 13-14; in the day 14 group, 2 (11%) cases were identified. More than half (12/19; 63%) of the newly identified cases were presymptomatic or asymptomatic.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight the utility of cohort-based testing promptly after initiating quarantine within a housing tier. Cohort-based testing efforts identified new SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections that may have been missed by symptom screening alone.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1802DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7799274PMC
March 2021

Harms Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions Aimed at Modifying Microbiota.

Ann Intern Med 2019 01;170(2):143-144

INSERM U1153, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, and French Cochrane Centre, Paris, France (P.R.).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/L18-0562DOI Listing
January 2019

Harms Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions Aimed at Modifying Microbiota: A Systematic Review.

Ann Intern Med 2018 08 17;169(4):240-247. Epub 2018 Jul 17.

INSERM U1153, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, and French Cochrane Centre, Paris, France, and Columbia University, New York, New York (P.R.).

Background: Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics are used increasingly, although the safety and potential harms of these interventions are poorly understood.

Purpose: To examine how harms-related information is reported in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics.

Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (without language restrictions) from 1 January 2015 to 20 March 2018.

Study Selection: RCTs assessing the safety or efficacy of at least 1 intervention involving probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics alone or in combination with another intervention compared with any control (such as a placebo or an antibiotic) for any clinical condition.

Data Extraction: 4 reviewers independently assessed study characteristics, the reporting of harms, and the presentation of safety results.

Data Synthesis: Of 384 trials conducted in healthy volunteers (n = 136) or patients with any of several medical conditions (n = 248), 339 (88%) were published in specialty journals. Trials most often evaluated probiotics (n = 265 [69%]). Studies in persons with medical conditions enrolled outpatients (n = 195) and high-risk patients (n = 53). No harms-related data were reported for 106 trials (28%), safety results were not reported for 142 (37%), and the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) per study group was not given for 309 (80%). Of 242 studies mentioning harms-related results, 37% (n = 89) used only generic statements to describe AEs and 16% (n = 38) used inadequate metrics. Overall, 375 trials (98%) did not give a definition for AEs or SAEs, the number of participant withdrawals due to harms, or the number of AEs and SAEs per study group with denominators.

Limitation: Journal publication processes may have affected the completeness of reporting; only English-language publications were examined.

Conclusion: Harms reporting in published reports of RCTs assessing probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics often is lacking or inadequate. We cannot broadly conclude that these interventions are safe without reporting safety data.

Primary Funding Source: No specific funding.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M18-0343DOI Listing
August 2018
-->