11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      UK consensus statement on the diagnosis of inducible laryngeal obstruction in light of the COVID‐19 pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, laryngoscopy was the mandatory gold standard for the accurate assessment and diagnosis of inducible laryngeal obstruction. However, upper airway endoscopy is considered an aerosol‐generating procedure in professional guidelines, meaning routine procedures are highly challenging and the availability of laryngoscopy is reduced. In response, we have convened a multidisciplinary panel with broad experience in managing this disease and agreed a recommended strategy for presumptive diagnosis in patients who cannot have laryngoscopy performed due to pandemic restrictions. To maintain clinical standards whilst ensuring patient safety, we discuss the importance of triage, information gathering, symptom assessment and early review of response to treatment. The consensus recommendations will also be potentially relevant to other future situations where access to laryngoscopy is restricted, although we emphasize that this investigation remains the gold standard.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients

          To the Editor: The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic, which was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has been declared a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization, may progress to a pandemic associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. SARS-CoV-2 is genetically related to SARS-CoV, which caused a global epidemic with 8096 confirmed cases in more than 25 countries in 2002–2003. 1 The epidemic of SARS-CoV was successfully contained through public health interventions, including case detection and isolation. Transmission of SARS-CoV occurred mainly after days of illness 2 and was associated with modest viral loads in the respiratory tract early in the illness, with viral loads peaking approximately 10 days after symptom onset. 3 We monitored SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in upper respiratory specimens obtained from 18 patients (9 men and 9 women; median age, 59 years; range, 26 to 76) in Zhuhai, Guangdong, China, including 4 patients with secondary infections (1 of whom never had symptoms) within two family clusters (Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). The patient who never had symptoms was a close contact of a patient with a known case and was therefore monitored. A total of 72 nasal swabs (sampled from the mid-turbinate and nasopharynx) (Figure 1A) and 72 throat swabs (Figure 1B) were analyzed, with 1 to 9 sequential samples obtained from each patient. Polyester flock swabs were used for all the patients. From January 7 through January 26, 2020, a total of 14 patients who had recently returned from Wuhan and had fever (≥37.3°C) received a diagnosis of Covid-19 (the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2) by means of reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction assay with primers and probes targeting the N and Orf1b genes of SARS-CoV-2; the assay was developed by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Samples were tested at the Guangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Thirteen of 14 patients with imported cases had evidence of pneumonia on computed tomography (CT). None of them had visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan within 14 days before symptom onset. Patients E, I, and P required admission to intensive care units, whereas the others had mild-to-moderate illness. Secondary infections were detected in close contacts of Patients E, I, and P. Patient E worked in Wuhan and visited his wife (Patient L), mother (Patient D), and a friend (Patient Z) in Zhuhai on January 17. Symptoms developed in Patients L and D on January 20 and January 22, respectively, with viral RNA detected in their nasal and throat swabs soon after symptom onset. Patient Z reported no clinical symptoms, but his nasal swabs (cycle threshold [Ct] values, 22 to 28) and throat swabs (Ct values, 30 to 32) tested positive on days 7, 10, and 11 after contact. A CT scan of Patient Z that was obtained on February 6 was unremarkable. Patients I and P lived in Wuhan and visited their daughter (Patient H) in Zhuhai on January 11 when their symptoms first developed. Fever developed in Patient H on January 17, with viral RNA detected in nasal and throat swabs on day 1 after symptom onset. We analyzed the viral load in nasal and throat swabs obtained from the 17 symptomatic patients in relation to day of onset of any symptoms (Figure 1C). Higher viral loads (inversely related to Ct value) were detected soon after symptom onset, with higher viral loads detected in the nose than in the throat. Our analysis suggests that the viral nucleic acid shedding pattern of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 resembles that of patients with influenza 4 and appears different from that seen in patients infected with SARS-CoV. 3 The viral load that was detected in the asymptomatic patient was similar to that in the symptomatic patients, which suggests the transmission potential of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients. These findings are in concordance with reports that transmission may occur early in the course of infection 5 and suggest that case detection and isolation may require strategies different from those required for the control of SARS-CoV. How SARS-CoV-2 viral load correlates with culturable virus needs to be determined. Identification of patients with few or no symptoms and with modest levels of detectable viral RNA in the oropharynx for at least 5 days suggests that we need better data to determine transmission dynamics and inform our screening practices.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques

            Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how ‘consensus’ is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of ‘experts.’ Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Endonasal instrumentation and aerosolization risk in the era of COVID-19: simulation, literature review, and proposed mitigation strategies

              International experience with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) suggests it poses a significant risk of infectious transmission to skull base surgeons, due to high nasal viral titers and the unknown potential for aerosol generation during endonasal instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to simulate aerosolization events over a range of endoscopic procedures to obtain an evidence-based aerosol risk assessment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jemma.haines@mft.nhs.uk
                Journal
                Clin Exp Allergy
                Clin Exp Allergy
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2222
                CEA
                Clinical and Experimental Allergy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0954-7894
                1365-2222
                08 October 2020
                : 10.1111/cea.13745
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Division of Infection Immunity & Respiratory Medicine School of Biological Sciences Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Manchester UK
                [ 2 ] Manchester Academic Health Science Centre and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Manchester UK
                [ 3 ] Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield UK
                [ 4 ] Lancashire Chest Centre Royal Preston Hospital Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Preston UK
                [ 5 ] Heartlands Hospital University Hospitals Birmingham Birmingham UK
                [ 6 ] Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals Newcastle Upon Tyne UK
                [ 7 ] Royal Brompton Hospital London UK
                [ 8 ] Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health University College London London UK
                [ 9 ] English Institute of Sport London UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Jemma Haines, Education and Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe Hospital, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.

                Email: jemma.haines@ 123456mft.nhs.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3813-041X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4697-1526
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4524-1663
                Article
                CEA13745
                10.1111/cea.13745
                7675451
                33034142
                9afd1ddd-95fd-4075-92fd-4beb37013127
                © 2020 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 26 June 2020
                : 08 September 2020
                : 15 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 7, Words: 9076
                Categories
                Guidelines
                Guidelines
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.4 mode:remove_FC converted:19.11.2020

                Immunology
                covid‐19,inducible laryngeal obstruction,laryngoscopy
                Immunology
                covid‐19, inducible laryngeal obstruction, laryngoscopy

                Comments

                Comment on this article