This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/health/coronavirus-testing-white-house.html

The article has changed 30 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 15 Version 16
Coronavirus Testing Used by the White House Could Miss Infections Coronavirus Testing Used by the White House Could Miss Infections
(32 minutes later)
A rapid coronavirus test used by the White House to screen its staff could miss infections up to 48 percent of the time, according to a study by researchers at N.Y.U. Langone Health.A rapid coronavirus test used by the White House to screen its staff could miss infections up to 48 percent of the time, according to a study by researchers at N.Y.U. Langone Health.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, evaluated the accuracy of the test, Abbott ID Now, a machine about the size of a toaster oven that can yield results in five to 13 minutes.The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, evaluated the accuracy of the test, Abbott ID Now, a machine about the size of a toaster oven that can yield results in five to 13 minutes.
The product, which was given emergency authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in late March, has been enthusiastically promoted by President Trump — it was even used as a prop during at least one news conference. Mr. Trump has said the tests are “highly accurate.”The product, which was given emergency authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in late March, has been enthusiastically promoted by President Trump — it was even used as a prop during at least one news conference. Mr. Trump has said the tests are “highly accurate.”
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond for comment.A White House spokesman did not immediately respond for comment.
There are 18,000 ID Now testing units in the United States, and the company says it has shipped 1.8 million of the kits required for the machine to test for the virus. The so-called point-of-care test is designed to be in doctor’s offices and clinics, and it is being used in drive-through testing sites around the country.There are 18,000 ID Now testing units in the United States, and the company says it has shipped 1.8 million of the kits required for the machine to test for the virus. The so-called point-of-care test is designed to be in doctor’s offices and clinics, and it is being used in drive-through testing sites around the country.
In a statement, the company defended its product, saying, “ID Now is an important tool that delivers information where it’s needed most.” Abbott said that its reported rate of false negatives — or missed infections — was 0.02 percent and that the N.Y.U. study’s results were “not consistent with other studies of the test.”In a statement, the company defended its product, saying, “ID Now is an important tool that delivers information where it’s needed most.” Abbott said that its reported rate of false negatives — or missed infections — was 0.02 percent and that the N.Y.U. study’s results were “not consistent with other studies of the test.”
“It’s unclear if the samples were tested correctly in this study,” the company said. “In communications with the users of the test, it is performing as expected.”“It’s unclear if the samples were tested correctly in this study,” the company said. “In communications with the users of the test, it is performing as expected.”
The authors of the N.Y.U. study said they evaluated the Abbott test because they were considering using it to test emergency department patients who were suspected of having the virus.The authors of the N.Y.U. study said they evaluated the Abbott test because they were considering using it to test emergency department patients who were suspected of having the virus.
The test can use two kinds of swabs: a long, nasopharyngeal swab that is inserted deep into the nose, where it meets the throat; and a shorter nasal swab that can take samples from the nose or throat. A swab is then taken to the testing unit for processing, where it is swirled in liquid, which is then analyzed in the machine.The test can use two kinds of swabs: a long, nasopharyngeal swab that is inserted deep into the nose, where it meets the throat; and a shorter nasal swab that can take samples from the nose or throat. A swab is then taken to the testing unit for processing, where it is swirled in liquid, which is then analyzed in the machine.
In April, other hospitals and researchers found that if swabs were stored in a liquid solution before being inserted into the machine, the sample could become diluted, producing negative results for those who were infected. Abbott later revised its instructions to recommend placing a dry swab directly into the machine after the sample was collected.In April, other hospitals and researchers found that if swabs were stored in a liquid solution before being inserted into the machine, the sample could become diluted, producing negative results for those who were infected. Abbott later revised its instructions to recommend placing a dry swab directly into the machine after the sample was collected.
The N.Y.U. researchers tested how the machine fared when the dry swabs were used. They took two samples each from 101 emergency department patients at N.Y.U. Langone Tisch Hospital who were suspected of having Covid-19. One sample used the longer nasopharyngeal swab and was stored in liquid. The second sample used dry nasal swabs. Each specimen was tested on both the Abbott ID Now and another machine, the Cepheid GeneXpert, which takes 45 minutes to yield a result and which has been validated by N.Y.U. as acceptably accurate.The N.Y.U. researchers tested how the machine fared when the dry swabs were used. They took two samples each from 101 emergency department patients at N.Y.U. Langone Tisch Hospital who were suspected of having Covid-19. One sample used the longer nasopharyngeal swab and was stored in liquid. The second sample used dry nasal swabs. Each specimen was tested on both the Abbott ID Now and another machine, the Cepheid GeneXpert, which takes 45 minutes to yield a result and which has been validated by N.Y.U. as acceptably accurate.
Updated June 30, 2020
Common symptoms include fever, a dry cough, fatigue and difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. Some of these symptoms overlap with those of the flu, making detection difficult, but runny noses and stuffy sinuses are less common. The C.D.C. has also added chills, muscle pain, sore throat, headache and a new loss of the sense of taste or smell as symptoms to look out for. Most people fall ill five to seven days after exposure, but symptoms may appear in as few as two days or as many as 14 days.
Scientists around the country have tried to identify everyday materials that do a good job of filtering microscopic particles. In recent tests, HEPA furnace filters scored high, as did vacuum cleaner bags, fabric similar to flannel pajamas and those of 600-count pillowcases. Other materials tested included layered coffee filters and scarves and bandannas. These scored lower, but still captured a small percentage of particles.
A commentary published this month on the website of the British Journal of Sports Medicine points out that covering your face during exercise “comes with issues of potential breathing restriction and discomfort” and requires “balancing benefits versus possible adverse events.” Masks do alter exercise, says Cedric X. Bryant, the president and chief science officer of the American Council on Exercise, a nonprofit organization that funds exercise research and certifies fitness professionals. “In my personal experience,” he says, “heart rates are higher at the same relative intensity when you wear a mask.” Some people also could experience lightheadedness during familiar workouts while masked, says Len Kravitz, a professor of exercise science at the University of New Mexico.
The steroid, dexamethasone, is the first treatment shown to reduce mortality in severely ill patients, according to scientists in Britain. The drug appears to reduce inflammation caused by the immune system, protecting the tissues. In the study, dexamethasone reduced deaths of patients on ventilators by one-third, and deaths of patients on oxygen by one-fifth.
The coronavirus emergency relief package gives many American workers paid leave if they need to take time off because of the virus. It gives qualified workers two weeks of paid sick leave if they are ill, quarantined or seeking diagnosis or preventive care for coronavirus, or if they are caring for sick family members. It gives 12 weeks of paid leave to people caring for children whose schools are closed or whose child care provider is unavailable because of the coronavirus. It is the first time the United States has had widespread federally mandated paid leave, and includes people who don’t typically get such benefits, like part-time and gig economy workers. But the measure excludes at least half of private-sector workers, including those at the country’s largest employers, and gives small employers significant leeway to deny leave.
So far, the evidence seems to show it does. A widely cited paper published in April suggests that people are most infectious about two days before the onset of coronavirus symptoms and estimated that 44 percent of new infections were a result of transmission from people who were not yet showing symptoms. Recently, a top expert at the World Health Organization stated that transmission of the coronavirus by people who did not have symptoms was “very rare,” but she later walked back that statement.
Touching contaminated objects and then infecting ourselves with the germs is not typically how the virus spreads. But it can happen. A number of studies of flu, rhinovirus, coronavirus and other microbes have shown that respiratory illnesses, including the new coronavirus, can spread by touching contaminated surfaces, particularly in places like day care centers, offices and hospitals. But a long chain of events has to happen for the disease to spread that way. The best way to protect yourself from coronavirus — whether it’s surface transmission or close human contact — is still social distancing, washing your hands, not touching your face and wearing masks.
A study by European scientists is the first to document a strong statistical link between genetic variations and Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus. Having Type A blood was linked to a 50 percent increase in the likelihood that a patient would need to get oxygen or to go on a ventilator, according to the new study.
The unemployment rate fell to 13.3 percent in May, the Labor Department said on June 5, an unexpected improvement in the nation’s job market as hiring rebounded faster than economists expected. Economists had forecast the unemployment rate to increase to as much as 20 percent, after it hit 14.7 percent in April, which was the highest since the government began keeping official statistics after World War II. But the unemployment rate dipped instead, with employers adding 2.5 million jobs, after more than 20 million jobs were lost in April.
If air travel is unavoidable, there are some steps you can take to protect yourself. Most important: Wash your hands often, and stop touching your face. If possible, choose a window seat. A study from Emory University found that during flu season, the safest place to sit on a plane is by a window, as people sitting in window seats had less contact with potentially sick people. Disinfect hard surfaces. When you get to your seat and your hands are clean, use disinfecting wipes to clean the hard surfaces at your seat like the head and arm rest, the seatbelt buckle, the remote, screen, seat back pocket and the tray table. If the seat is hard and nonporous or leather or pleather, you can wipe that down, too. (Using wipes on upholstered seats could lead to a wet seat and spreading of germs rather than killing them.)
If you’ve been exposed to the coronavirus or think you have, and have a fever or symptoms like a cough or difficulty breathing, call a doctor. They should give you advice on whether you should be tested, how to get tested, and how to seek medical treatment without potentially infecting or exposing others.
The researchers found that the Cepheid machine identified 31 of the 101 patients as positive for the virus. But even when the dry nasal swabs were used, the Abbott ID Now identified only 16 people as positive. In other words, 15 patients had the virus, but the Abbott ID Now test said they were negative.The researchers found that the Cepheid machine identified 31 of the 101 patients as positive for the virus. But even when the dry nasal swabs were used, the Abbott ID Now identified only 16 people as positive. In other words, 15 patients had the virus, but the Abbott ID Now test said they were negative.
Using the dry nasal swab yielded less accurate results than when the researchers used a nasopharyngeal swab that had been stored in liquid. When those types of nasopharyngeal swabs were used, the Abbott missed infections one-third of the time, the researchers said.Using the dry nasal swab yielded less accurate results than when the researchers used a nasopharyngeal swab that had been stored in liquid. When those types of nasopharyngeal swabs were used, the Abbott missed infections one-third of the time, the researchers said.
The White House did not respond to questions about which types of swabs it uses.The White House did not respond to questions about which types of swabs it uses.
The N.Y.U. researchers said that because the Abbott ID Now machine missed so many infections — including in patients who had to be admitted to the hospital — the technology is “unacceptable in our clinical setting.”The N.Y.U. researchers said that because the Abbott ID Now machine missed so many infections — including in patients who had to be admitted to the hospital — the technology is “unacceptable in our clinical setting.”
The researchers said their study was limited by the small sample size, as well as the one to two hours it took to transport the samples. Although that was within the manufacturer’s recommendation of two hours, the researchers noted that the test was intended to be used where the patients were, not in a laboratory.The researchers said their study was limited by the small sample size, as well as the one to two hours it took to transport the samples. Although that was within the manufacturer’s recommendation of two hours, the researchers noted that the test was intended to be used where the patients were, not in a laboratory.
Reporting contributed by Jeremy White.Reporting contributed by Jeremy White.
[Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.][Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.]