22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Consensus on Recommendations for Safe Sexual Activity during the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Sexual activity offers numerous advantages for physical and mental health but maintains inherent risks in a pandemic situation, such as the current one caused by SARS-CoV-2. A group of experts from the Spanish Association of Sexuality and Mental Health (AESexSAME) has reached a consensus on recommendations to maintain lower-risk sexual activity, depending on one’s clinical and partner situations, based on the current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2. Different situations are included in the recommendations: a sexual partner passing quarantine without any symptoms, a sexual partner that has not passed quarantine, a sexual partner with some suspicious symptoms of COVID-19, a positive sexual partner with COVID-19, a pregnant sexual partner, a health professional partner in contact with COVID-19 patients, and people without a sexual partner. The main recommendations include returning to engaging in safe sex after quarantine is over (28 days based on the duration one can carry SARS-CoV-2, or 33 days for those who are >60 years old) and all parties are asymptomatic. In all other cases (for those under quarantine, those with some clinical symptoms, health professionals in contact with COVID-19 patients, and during pregnancy), abstaining from coital/oral/anal sex, substituting it with masturbatory or virtual sexual activity to provide maximum protection from the contagion, and increasing the benefits inherent to sexual activity are recommended. For persons without a partner, not initiating sexual activity with a sporadic partner is strongly recommended.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

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

          The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application

          Background: A novel human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019. There is limited support for many of its key epidemiologic features, including the incubation period for clinical disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), which has important implications for surveillance and control activities. Objective: To estimate the length of the incubation period of COVID-19 and describe its public health implications. Design: Pooled analysis of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between 4 January 2020 and 24 February 2020. Setting: News reports and press releases from 50 provinces, regions, and countries outside Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Participants: Persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection outside Hubei province, China. Measurements: Patient demographic characteristics and dates and times of possible exposure, symptom onset, fever onset, and hospitalization. Results: There were 181 confirmed cases with identifiable exposure and symptom onset windows to estimate the incubation period of COVID-19. The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10 000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine. Limitation: Publicly reported cases may overrepresent severe cases, the incubation period for which may differ from that of mild cases. Conclusion: This work provides additional evidence for a median incubation period for COVID-19 of approximately 5 days, similar to SARS. Our results support current proposals for the length of quarantine or active monitoring of persons potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2, although longer monitoring periods might be justified in extreme cases. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evidence for Gastrointestinal Infection of SARS-CoV-2

            Since the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was identified in Wuhan, China, at the end of 2019, the virus has spread to 32 countries, infecting more than 80,000 people and causing more than 2600 deaths globally. The viral infection causes a series of respiratory illnesses, including severe respiratory syndrome, indicating that the virus most likely infects respiratory epithelial cells and spreads mainly via respiratory tract from human to human. However, viral target cells and organs have not been fully determined, impeding our understanding of the pathogenesis of the viral infection and viral transmission routes. According to a recent case report, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in a stool specimen, 1 raising the question of viral gastrointestinal infection and a fecal-oral transmission route. It has been proven that SARS-CoV-2 uses angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) 2 as a viral receptor for entry process. 2 ACE2 messenger RNA is highly expressed and stabilized by B0AT1 in gastrointestinal system, 3 , 4 providing a prerequisite for SARS-CoV-2 infection. To further investigate the clinical significance of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in feces, we examined the viral RNA in feces from 71 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection during their hospitalizations. The viral RNA and viral nucleocapsid protein were examined in gastrointestinal tissues from 1 of the patients. Methods From February 1 to 14, 2020, clinical specimens, including serum, nasopharyngeal, and oropharyngeal swabs; urine; stool; and tissues from 73 hospitalized patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 were obtained in accordance with China Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by using the China Disease Control and Prevention–standardized quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. 5 Clinical characteristics of the 73 patients are shown in Supplementary Table 1. The esophageal, gastric, duodenal, and rectal tissues were obtained from 1 of the patients by using endoscopy. The patient’s clinical information is described in the Supplementary Case Clinical Information and Supplementary Table 2. Histologic staining (H&E) as well as viral receptor ACE2 and viral nucleocapsid staining were performed as described in the Supplementary Methods. The images of fluorescent staining were obtained by using laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSM880, Carl Zeiss MicroImaging, Oberkochen, Germany) and are shown in Figure 1 . This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, and all patients signed informed consent forms. Figure 1 Images of histologic and immunofluorescent staining of gastrointestinal tissues. Shown are images of histologic and immunofluorescent staining of esophagus, stomach, duodenum, and rectum. The scale bar in the histologic image represents 100 μm. The scale bar in the immunofluorescent image represents 20 μm. Results From February 1 to 14, 2020, among all of the 73 hospitalized patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, 39 (53.42%), including 25 male and 14 female patients, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool, as shown in Supplementary Table 1. The age of patients with positive results for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool ranged from 10 months to 78 years old. The duration time of positive stool results ranged from 1 to 12 days. Furthermore, 17 (23.29%) patients continued to have positive results in stool after showing negative results in respiratory samples. Gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed on a patient as described in the Supplementary Case Clinical Information. As shown in Figure 1, the mucous epithelium of esophagus, stomach, duodenum, and rectum showed no significant damage with H&E staining. Infiltrate of occasional lymphocytes was observed in esophageal squamous epithelium. In lamina propria of the stomach, duodenum, and rectum, numerous infiltrating plasma cells and lymphocytes with interstitial edema were seen. Importantly, viral host receptor ACE2 stained positive mainly in the cytoplasm of gastrointestinal epithelial cells (Figure 1). We observed that ACE2 is rarely expressed in esophageal epithelium but is abundantly distributed in the cilia of the glandular epithelia. Staining of viral nucleocapsid protein was visualized in the cytoplasm of gastric, duodenal, and rectum glandular epithelial cell, but not in esophageal epithelium. The positive staining of ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 was also observed in gastrointestinal epithelium from other patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in feces (data not shown). Discussion In this article, we provide evidence for gastrointestinal infection of SARS-CoV-2 and its possible fecal-oral transmission route. Because viruses spread from infected to uninfected cells, 6 viral-specific target cells or organs are determinants of viral transmission routes. Receptor-mediated viral entry into a host cell is the first step of viral infection. Our immunofluorescent data showed that ACE2 protein, which has been proven to be a cell receptor for SARS-CoV-2, is abundantly expressed in the glandular cells of gastric, duodenal, and rectal epithelia, supporting the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the host cells. ACE2 staining is rarely seen in esophageal mucosa, probably because the esophageal epithelium is mainly composed of squamous epithelial cells, which express less ACE2 than glandular epithelial cells. Our results of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection and intracellular staining of viral nucleocapsid protein in gastric, duodenal, and rectal epithelia demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 infects these gastrointestinal glandular epithelial cells. Although viral RNA was also detected in esophageal mucous tissue, absence of viral nucleocapsid protein staining in esophageal mucosa indicates low viral infection in esophageal mucosa. After viral entry, virus-specific RNA and proteins are synthesized in the cytoplasm to assemble new virions, 7 which can be released to the gastrointestinal tract. The continuous positive detection of viral RNA from feces suggests that the infectious virions are secreted from the virus-infected gastrointestinal cells. Recently, we and others have isolated infectious SARS-CoV-2 from stool (unpublished data), confirming the release of the infectious virions to the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, fecal-oral transmission could be an additional route for viral spread. Prevention of fecal-oral transmission should be taken into consideration to control the spread of the virus. Our results highlight the clinical significance of testing viral RNA in feces by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) because infectious virions released from the gastrointestinal tract can be monitored by the test. According to the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance for the disposition of patients with SARS-CoV-2, the decision to discontinue transmission-based precautions for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 is based on negative results rRT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 from at least 2 sequential respiratory tract specimens collected ≥24 hours apart. 8 However, in more than 20% of patients with SARS-CoV-2, we observed that the test result for viral RNA remained positive in feces, even after test results for viral RNA in the respiratory tract converted to negative, indicating that the viral gastrointestinal infection and potential fecal-oral transmission can last even after viral clearance in the respiratory tract. Therefore, we strongly recommend that rRT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 from feces should be performed routinely in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and that transmission-based precautions for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 should continue if feces test results are positive by rRT-PCR testing.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic

              Summary Background Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I 2 statistics, and assessment of study quality. Findings 1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5–36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7–40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6–44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2–42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5–50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5–14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6–16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7–17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7–17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1–24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1–23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9–37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0–100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7–42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1–18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1–19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1–84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality. Interpretation If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term. Funding Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                20 July 2020
                July 2020
                : 9
                : 7
                : 2297
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Instituto Andaluz de Sexología y Psicología, Alameda Principal 21, 5º, 29001 Malaga, Spain; fcabello@ 123456iasexologia.com
                [2 ]Centro de Salud de Xàtiva, Avenida de Ausìas March s/n. Xàtiva, 46800 Valencia, Spain; consultafsanchez@ 123456gmail.com
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, Psychology and Psychosomatics, Dexeus University Hospital, Carrer de Sabino Arana, 5, 08028 Barcelona, Spain; jmfarremarti@ 123456gmail.com
                [4 ]Hospital Universitario Psychiatry Department, University of Salamanca Nursing School, Institute of Biomedical Research (IBSAL). Av., Donantes de Sangre SN, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: amontejo@ 123456usal.es ; Tel.: +34-639754620
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4383-1333
                Article
                jcm-09-02297
                10.3390/jcm9072297
                7408907
                32698369
                cd3b301d-d64d-423e-b78e-902dd8576b86
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 May 2020
                : 15 July 2020
                Categories
                Communication

                sexual activity,covid-19,sars-cov-2,recommendations,consensus,sexual risk

                Comments

                Comment on this article