ABSTRACT
To date, there is limited information about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen especially in the acute phase of the infection. While available data from cohort studies including a total of 342 patients in the acute or recovery phase of the infection are reassuring, one study mentioned detecting virus in the semen of 6/38 COVID-19 patients. Here we assessed SARS-CoV-2 presence in the semen of COVID-19 positive patients in the acute stage of infection, within 24 hours of the positive nasopharyngeal swabs. Semen, seminal plasma and spermatozoa pellet were screened for SARS-CoV-2 and manual or airborne contamination during semen sampling. Among the 32 COVID-19 volunteers, the median interval from the onset of symptoms to semen collection was 4 days [IQR: 0-8]. Only one presented positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in semen and seminal plasma fractions, although the spermatozoa pellet was negative. Viral cultures were all negative. We observed slightly higher concentrations of bacterial DNA in the SARS-CoV-2 positive specimen than in all negative samples. The bacteria identified neither confirm nor rule out contamination by oropharyngeal secretions during collection. SARS-CoV-2 was rarely present in semen during the acute phase of the disease. This very rare situation could be connected to oral or manual contamination during semen collection. The possible presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen calls for nasopharyngeal viral testing and strict hygiene protocols during semen collection before assisted reproductive attempts.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Semen/chemistry , Spermatozoa/chemistry , Adult , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Semen/virology , Specimen Handling , Spermatozoa/virologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: RT-PCR testing is crucial in the diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of reliable and comparable PCR assays is a cornerstone to allow use of different PCR assays depending on the local equipment. In this work, we provide a comparison of the Cobas® (Roche) and the RealStar® assay (Altona). METHODS: Assessment of the two assays was performed prospectively in three reference Parisians hospitals, using 170 clinical samples. They were tested with the Cobas® assay, selected to obtain a distribution of cycle threshold (Ct) as large as possible, and tested with the RealStar assay with three largely available extraction platforms: QIAsymphony (Qiagen), MagNAPure (Roche) and NucliSENS-easyMag (BioMérieux). RESULTS: Overall, the agreement (positive for at least one gene) was 76 %. This rate differed considerably depending on the Cobas Ct values for gene E: below 35 (n = 91), the concordance was 99 %. Regarding the positive Ct values, linear regression analysis showed a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.88 and the Deming regression line revealed a strong correlation with a slope of 1.023 and an intercept of -3.9. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the mean difference (Cobas® minus RealStar®) was + 3.3 Ct, with a SD of + 2.3 Ct. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison, both RealStar® and Cobas® assays provided comparable qualitative results and a high correlation when both tests were positive. Discrepancies exist after 35 Ct and varied depending on the extraction system used for the RealStar® assay, probably due to a low viral load close to the detection limit of both assays.