Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: Implications for late-stage diagnosis and infectious duration.

Saliva has been a COVID-19 diagnostic specimen of interest due to its simple collection, scalability, and yield. Yet COVID-19 testing and estimates of the infectious period remain largely based on nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs. We sought to evaluate whether saliva testing captured prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 and potential infectiousness later in the disease course. We conducted an observational study of symptomatic COVID-19 patients at University Hospital in Newark, NJ. Paired saliva and nasal specimens from 96 patients were analyzed, including longitudinal analysis of paired observations from 28 of these patients who had multiple time-points. Saliva detected significantly more cases of COVID-19 beyond 5 days (86.1% [99/115] saliva vs 48.7% [56/115] nasal, p-value < 0.001), 9 days (79.4% [50/63] saliva vs 36.5% [23/63] nasal, p-value < 0.001) and 14 days (71.4% [20/28] saliva vs 32.1% [9/28] nasal, p-value = 0.010) of symptoms. Additionally, saliva yielded lower cycle thresholds across all time periods, indicative of higher viral loads in saliva. In the longitudinal analysis, a log-rank analysis indicated that the survival curve for saliva was significantly different from the curve for nasal swabs (p<0.001) with a median survival time for saliva of 18 days compared to 13 days for nasal swabs. We additionally performed saliva viral cultures among a similar COVID-19 patient cohort and noted patients with positive saliva viral cultures between 7 to 28 days of symptoms. Findings from this study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA persists longer and in higher abundance in saliva compared to nasal swabs, with potential of prolonged propagating virus. Testing saliva may thus increase yield for detecting potentially infectious virus even beyond the first five days of symptomatic COVID-19.

RT-PCR negative COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a multi-system infection with emerging evidence-based antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapies to improve disease prognosis. However, a subset of patients with COVID-19 signs and symptoms have repeatedly negative RT-PCR tests, leading to treatment hesitancy. We used comparative serology early in the COVID-19 pandemic when background seroprevalence was low to estimate the likelihood of COVID-19 infection among RT-PCR negative patients with clinical signs and/or symptoms compatible with COVID-19. METHODS: Between April and October 2020, we conducted serologic testing of patients with (i) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 who were repeatedly negative by RT-PCR ('Probables'; N = 20), (ii) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 but with a potential alternative diagnosis ('Suspects'; N = 15), (iii) no signs and symptoms of COVID-19 ('Non-suspects'; N = 43), (iv) RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (N = 40), and (v) pre-pandemic samples (N = 55). RESULTS: Probables had similar seropositivity and levels of IgG and IgM antibodies as propensity-score matched RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (60.0% vs 80.0% for IgG, p-value = 0.13; 50.0% vs 72.5% for IgM, p-value = 0.10), but multi-fold higher seropositivity rates than Suspects and matched Non-suspects (60.0% vs 13.3% and 11.6% for IgG; 50.0% vs 0% and 4.7% for IgM respectively; p-values < 0.01). However, Probables were half as likely to receive COVID-19 treatment than the RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with similar disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate a high likelihood of acute COVID-19 among RT-PCR negative with typical signs/symptoms, but a common omission of COVID-19 therapies among these patients. Clinically diagnosed COVID-19, independent of RT-PCR positivity, thus has a potential vital role in guiding treatment decisions.

The Poison Center as a pandemic response: establishment and characteristics of a COVID-19 hotline through the New Jersey Poison Center.

BACKGROUND: Poison Centers are uniquely positioned to respond to an unprecedented public health threat such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as fully operational 24-h hotlines already staffed with healthcare professionals. METHODS: On January 27, 2020 the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System (NJPIES) agreed to operate the New Jersey Coronavirus Hotline. Call patterns, subject matter, and staffing and infrastructure strategies that were implemented to meet the demand are described. In addition, a sample of 1500 individual calls were collected and analyzed in an endeavor to describe call times, call days, area from which the call originated, callers to the hotline, primary language of the caller, and why a call was placed to the hotline. Binomial regression analysis was utilized in an attempt to identify significant patterns. RESULTS: Since the inception of the hotline through October 31, NJPIES responded to 57,579 calls for COVID-19 information. Most calls (68.7%) were regarding testing for COVID-19 and for general questions/symptoms. Call types varied when they were analyzed by time of day with calls for general questions/symptoms and where to get tested for COVID-19 showing a significant association for the early morning hours, how to obtain test results being significantly associated with the afternoon hours, and how to renew or obtain a medical license showing a significant association to the evening hours. We additionally noted that specific call types became significant when analyzed on a week-to-week basis and as specific events, like the enactment of the CARES Act of 2020, occurred. CONCLUSION: Although not the traditional role of a regional Poison Control Center, pandemic response synergizes with the workflow of this hotline because the infrastructure, staffing, and healthcare expertise are already present. Poison centers can rapidly adapt through scaling and process change to meet the needs of the public during times of public health threats.