Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Main subject
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.10.06.21263384

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection and diagnostics in household members of different ages and with different symptom severity after SARS-CoV-2 exposure during the early phase of the pandemic. Households with a SARS-CoV-2 confirmed positive case and at least one child in the Netherlands were followed for 6 weeks. Naso (NP)- and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, oral fluid and feces specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serum for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. The dynamics of the presence of viral RNA and the serological response was modeled to determine the sampling time-frame and sample type with the highest sensitivity to confirm or reject a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between adults and children within a household was correlated with symptom severity of index cases. In children higher viral loads compared to adults were detected at symptom onset. Early in infection, higher viral loads were detected in NP and OP specimens, while RNA in especially feces were longer detectable. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies have a 90% probability of detection from 7 days (total Ig) and 18 days (IgG) since symptom onset. In conclusion this study has shown that on average, children carry higher loads of virus as compared to adults early after infection. For highest probability of detection in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics early in infection, RT-PCR on NP and OP specimens are more sensitive than on oral fluid and feces. For SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics late after infection, RT-PCR on feces specimens and serology are more valuable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
2.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.09.21.20191288

ABSTRACT

To understand SARS-CoV-2 immunity after natural infection or vaccination, functional assays such as virus neutralizing assays are needed. So far, assays to determine SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies rely on cell-culture based infection assays either using wild type SARS-CoV-2 or pseudotyped viruses. Such assays are labour-intensive, require appropriate biosafety facilities and are difficult to standardize. Recently, a new surrogate virus neutralisation assay (sVNT) was described that uses the principle of an ELISA to measure the neutralization capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies directed against the receptor binding domain. Here, we performed an independent evaluation of the robustness, specificity and sensitivity on an extensive panel of sera from 269 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 259 unmatched samples collected before 2020 and compared it to cell-based neutralization assays. We found a high specificity of 99.2 (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) and overall sensitivity of 80.3 (95%CI: 74.9-84.8) for the sVNT. Clinical sensitivity increased between early (<14 days post symptom onset or post diagnosis, dpos/dpd) and late sera (>14 dpos/dpd) from 75.0 (64.7-83.2) to 83.1 (76.5-88.1). Also, higher severity was associated with an increase in clinical sensitivity. Upon comparison with cell-based neutralisation assays we determined an analytical sensitivity of 74.3 (56.4-86.9) and 98.2 (89.4-99.9) for titres [≥]10 to <40 and [≥]40 to <160, respectively. Only samples with a titre [≥]160 were always positive in the sVNT. In conclusion, the sVNT can be used as an additional assay to determine the immune status of COVID-19 infected of vaccinated individuals but its value needs to be assessed for the specific context of use.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL