Search

What started as a cluster of patients with a mysterious respiratory illness in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, was later determined to be coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel Betacoronavirus , was subsequently isolated as the causative agent. SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by respiratory droplets and fomites and presents clinically with fever, fatigue, myalgias, conjunctivitis, anosmia, dysgeusia, sore throat, nasal congestion, cough, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea. In most critical cases, symptoms can escalate into acute respiratory distress syndrome accompanied by a runaway inflammatory cytokine response and multiorgan failure. As of this article's publication date, COVID-19 has spread to approximately 200 countries and territories, with over 4.3 million infections and more than 290,000 deaths as it has escalated into a global pandemic. Public health concerns mount as the situation evolves with an increasing number of infection hotspots around the globe. New information about the virus is emerging just as rapidly. This has led to the prompt development of clinical patient risk stratification tools to aid in determining the need for testing, isolation, monitoring, ventilator support, and disposition. COVID-19 spread is rapid, including imported cases in travelers, cases among close contacts of known infected individuals, and community-acquired cases without a readily identifiable source of infection. Critical shortages of personal protective equipment and ventilators are compounding the stress on overburdened healthcare systems. The continued challenges of social distancing, containment, isolation, and surge capacity in already stressed hospitals, clinics, and emergency departments have led to a swell in technologically-assisted care delivery strategies, such as telemedicine and web-based triage. As the race to develop an effective vaccine intensifies, several clinical trials of antivirals and immune modulators are underway, though no reliable COVID-19-specific therapeutics (inclusive of some potentially effective single and multi-drug regimens) have been identified as of yet. With many nations and regions declaring a state of emergency, unprecedented quarantine, social distancing, and border closing efforts are underway. Implementation of social and physical isolation measures has caused sudden and profound economic hardship, with marked decreases in global trade and local small business activity alike, and full ramifications likely yet to be felt. Current state-of-science, mitigation strategies, possible therapies, ethical considerations for healthcare workers and policymakers, as well as lessons learned for this evolving global threat and the eventual return to a "new normal" are discussed in this article., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Global Infectious Diseases.)

Introduction: Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response to suspected or confirmed infection. Clinical evaluations are essential for its early detection and treatment. Blood cultures may take as long as 2 days to yield a result and are not always reliable. However, recent studies have suggested that neutrophil CD64 expression may be a sensitive and specific alternative for the diagnosis of systemic infection., Objective: The objective of the study was to analyze the difference in CD64 values between subjects with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), suspected or confirmed sepsis, who meet diagnostic criteria for SIRS upon arriving at an emergency department., Materials and Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study, an accuracy study of CD64 prospectively evaluated. The sample consisted of 109 patients aged 18 years with criteria for SIRS on arrival to emergency department. CD64 expression was measured within 6 h of hospital admission and once again after 48 h., Results: ROC curve analysis suggested that a cutoff of 1.45 for CD64 expression could diagnose sepsis with a sensitivity of 0.85, a specificity of 0.75, an accuracy of 82.08%, a positive predictive value of 0.96, a negative predictive value of 0.38 and a positive likelihood ratio of 3.33. The area under the curve was 0.83., Conclusion: CD64 seems to be a useful, sensitive, and specific biomarker in discriminating between SIRS and sepsis., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.

On January 27, 2013, a fire at the Kiss Nightclub in Santa Maria, Brazil led to a mass-casualty incident affecting hundreds of college students. A total of 234 people died on scene, 145 were hospitalized, and another 623 people received treatment throughout the first week following the incident.1 Eight of the hospitalized people later died.1 The Military Police were the first on scene, followed by the state fire department, and then the municipal Mobile Prehospital Assistance (SAMU) ambulances. The number of victims was not communicated clearly to the various units arriving on scene, leading to insufficient rescue personnel and equipment. Incident command was established on scene, but the rescuers and police were still unable to control the chaos of multiple bystanders attempting to assist in the rescue efforts. The Municipal Sports Center (CDM) was designated as the location for dead bodies, where victim identification and communication with families occurred, as well as forensic evaluation, which determined the primary cause of death to be asphyxia. A command center was established at the Hospital de Caridade Astrogildo de Azevedo (HCAA) in Santa Maria to direct where patients should be admitted, recruit staff, and procure additional supplies, as needed. The victims suffered primarily from smoke inhalation and many required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. There was a shortage of ventilators; therefore, some had to be borrowed from local hospitals, neighboring cities, and distant areas in the state. A total of 54 patients1 were transferred to hospitals in the capital city of Porto Alegre (Brazil). The main issues with the response to the fire were scene control and communication. Areas for improvement were identified, namely the establishment of a disaster-response plan, as well as regularly scheduled training in disaster preparedness/response. These activities are the first steps to improving mass-casualty responses.