Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (6) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (6)
The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of the acute respiratory disease COVID-19, which has become a global concern due to its rapid spread. Meanwhile, increased demand for testing has led to a shortage of reagents and supplies and compromised the performance of diagnostic laboratories in many countries. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend multi-step RT-PCR assays using multiple primer and probe pairs, which might complicate the interpretation of the test results, especially for borderline cases. In this study, we describe an alternative RT-PCR approach for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA that can be used for the probe-based detection of clinical isolates in diagnostics as well as in research labs using a low-cost SYBR green method. For the evaluation, we used samples from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and performed RT-PCR assays along with successive dilutions of RNA standards to determine the limit of detection. We identified an M-gene binding primer and probe pair highly suitable for the quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnostic and research purposes.
Aim: It can be challenging to distinguish COVID-19 in children from other common infections. We set out to determine the rate at which children consulting a primary care paediatrician with an acute infection are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and to compare distinct findings. Method: In seven out-patient clinics, children aged 0–13 years with any new respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms and presumed infection were invited to be tested for SARS-CoV-2. Factors that were correlated with testing positive were determined. Samples were collected from 25 January 2021 to 01 April 2021. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-three children participated in the study (median age 3 years and 0 months, range 1 month to 12 years and 11 months). Three hundred and fifty-eight were female (45.7%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 19 (2.4%). The most common symptoms in children with as well as without detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA were rhinitis, fever and cough. Known recent exposure to a case of COVID-19 was significantly correlated with testing positive, but symptoms or clinical findings were not. Conclusion: COVID-19 among the children with symptoms of an acute infection was uncommon, and the clinical presentation did not differ significantly between children with and without evidence of an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Aim: It can be challenging to distinguish COVID-19 in children from other common infections. We set out to determine the rate at which children consulting a primary care paediatrician with an acute infection are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and to compare distinct findings. Method: In seven out-patient clinics, children aged 0–13 years with any new respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms and presumed infection were invited to be tested for SARS-CoV-2. Factors that were correlated with testing positive were determined. Samples were collected from 25 January 2021 to 01 April 2021. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-three children participated in the study (median age 3 years and 0 months, range 1 month to 12 years and 11 months). Three hundred and fifty-eight were female (45.7%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 19 (2.4%). The most common symptoms in children with as well as without detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA were rhinitis, fever and cough. Known recent exposure to a case of COVID-19 was significantly correlated with testing positive, but symptoms or clinical findings were not. Conclusion: COVID-19 among the children with symptoms of an acute infection was uncommon, and the clinical presentation did not differ significantly between children with and without evidence of an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR is a vital public health tool in the pandemic. Self-collected samples are increasingly used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. Several studies suggested that they are sufficiently sensitive to be a useful alternative. However, there are limited data directly comparing several different types of self-collected materials to determine which material is preferable. A total of 102 predominantly symptomatic adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection self-collected native saliva, a tongue swab, a mid-turbinate nasal swab, saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad and gargle lavage, within 48 h of initial diagnosis. Sample collection was unsupervised. Both native saliva and gargling with tap water had high diagnostic sensitivity of 92.8% and 89.1%, respectively. Nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 85.1%, which was not significantly inferior to saliva (p = 0.092), but 16.6% of participants reported they had difficult in self-collection of this sample. A tongue swab and saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad had a significantly lower sensitivity of 74.2% and 70.2%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was not related to the presence of clinical symptoms or to age. When comparing self-collected specimens from different material, saliva, gargle lavage or mid-turbinate nasal swabs may be considered for most symptomatic patients. However, complementary experiments are required to verify that differences in performance observed among the five sampling modes were not attributed to collection impairment.
Purpose: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates predominantly in the upper respiratory tract and is primarily transmitted by droplets and aerosols. Taking the medical history for typical COVID-19 symptoms and PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing have become established as screening procedures. The aim of this work was to describe the clinical appearance of SARS-CoV-2-PCR positive patients and to determine the SARS-CoV-2 contact risk for health care workers (HCW).
Methods: The retrospective study included n = 2283 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from n = 1725 patients with otorhinolaryngological (ORL) diseases performed from March to November 2020 prior to inpatient treatment. In addition, demographic data and medical history were assessed.
Results: n = 13 PCR tests (0.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The positive rate showed a significant increase during the observation period (p < 0.01). None of the patients had clinical symptoms that led to a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 before PCR testing. The patients were either asymptomatic (n = 4) or had symptoms that were interpreted as symptoms typical of the ORL disease or secondary diagnoses (n = 9).
Conclusion: The identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Our findings illustrate that taking a medical history alone is of limited value and cannot replace molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for patients with ORL diseases. Our data also demonstrate that there is a high probability of contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in everyday clinical practice, so that the use of personal protective equipment, even in apparently “routine cases”, is highly recommended.
Multicentre comparison of quantitative PCR-based assays to detect SARS-CoV-2, Germany, March 2020
(2020)
Containment strategies and clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients during the current pandemic depend on reliable diagnostic PCR assays for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here, we compare 11 different RT-PCR test systems used in seven diagnostic laboratories in Germany in March 2020. While most assays performed well, we identified detection problems in a commonly used assay that may have resulted in false-negative test results during the first weeks of the pandemic.