ABSTRACT
Background. The extent to which the oro-faecal route contributes to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not established. Methods: We systematically reviewed the evidence on the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in faeces and other gastrointestinal sources by examining studies that used viral culture to investigate the presence of replication-competent virus in these samples. We conducted searches in the WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar for SARS-CoV-2 using keywords and associated synonyms, with a search date up to 28th of November 2023. Results: We included 13 studies involving 328 COVID-19 subjects - providing 314 faecal or rectal swab SARS-CoV2 positive samples tested also with viral culture. The methods used for viral culture across the studies were heterogeneous. Three studies (2 cohorts and 1 case-series) reported observing replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR (qPCR) and whole genome sequencing, and qPCR including appropriate cycle threshold changes. Overall, six (1.9%) of 314 faecal samples subjected to cell culture showed replication-competent virus. One study found replication competent samples from one immunocompromised patient. No studies were identified demonstrating direct evidence of oro-faecal transmission to humans. Conclusions: Our review found a relatively low frequency of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in faecal and other gastrointestinal sources. Although it is biologically plausible, more research is needed, using standardized cell culture methods, control groups, adequate follow-up and robust epidemiologic methods, including whether secondary infections occurred, to determine the role of the oro-faecal route in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , CoinfectionABSTRACT
Background: Vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been reported but appears uncommon. Objectives This study systematically reviewed the evidence on vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from pregnant women to their neonates. Search strategy Literature searches in WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar for SARS-CoV-2 using keywords and associated synonyms, search date to 20 December 2020; no language restrictions. Selection criteria Studies of any design reporting transmission. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility and extracted data. Results were reported descriptively; no meta-analyses were possible. Main results 106 studies were included: 40 reviews and 66 primary studies, most conducted in hospitals. 32 case reports were assessed as high risk of bias, due to the study design; across the 34 remaining primary studies, risk of bias was low to moderate. Sixteen case reports described vertical transmission. In cohort studies and case series, 65/2391 (2.7%) neonates born to mothers with a COVID-19 diagnosis tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 24 hours of birth; the proportion of positive neonates ranged from 0% to 22%. Twenty studies reported no vertical transmission. Maternal symptomatology and mode of delivery were not correlated with vertical transmission. 7/25 studies of placental tissue identified SARS-CoV-2; vertical transmission was infrequent. No study reported the results of viral culture to detect SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions These findings indicate that vertical transmission is possible, but not frequent. Further high-quality studies are needed to understand vertical transmission. Funding World Health Organization: WHO registration No 2020/1077093.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Systematic reviews of 591 primary studies of the modes of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 show significant methodological shortcomings and heterogeneity in the design, conduct, testing and reporting of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. While this is partly understandable at the outset of a pandemic, evidence rules of proof for assessing the transmission of this virus are needed for pre-sent and future pandemics of viral respiratory pathogens. We review the history of causality as-sessment related to microbial etiologies with a focus on respiratory viruses and suggest a hierar-chy of evidence to integrate clinical, epidemiologic, molecular and laboratory perspectives on transmission. The hierarchy, if applied to future studies, should narrow the uncertainty over the twin concepts of causality and transmission of human respiratory viruses. We attempt to address the translational gap between the current research evidence and the assessment of causality in the transmission of respiratory viruses with a focus on SARS-CoV-2. Experimentation, consistency and independent replication of research alongside our proposed framework provide a chain of evidence that can reduce the uncertainty over the transmission of respiratory viruses and increase the level of confidence in specific modes of transmission, informing the measures that should be undertaken to prevent transmission.
ABSTRACT
Wastewater monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 allows for early detection and monitoring of COVID-19 burden in communities and can track specific variants of concern. Targeted assays enabled relative proportions of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants to be determined across 30 municipalities covering >75% of the province of Alberta (pop. 4.5M) in Canada, from November 2021 to January 2022. Larger cities like Calgary and Edmonton exhibited a more rapid emergence of Omicron relative to smaller and more remote municipalities. Notable exceptions were Banff, a small international resort town, and Fort McMurray, a more remote northern city with a large fly-in worker population. The integrated wastewater signal revealed that the Omicron variant represented close to 100% of SARS-CoV-2 burden prior to the observed increase in newly diagnosed clinical cases throughout Alberta, which peaked two weeks later. These findings demonstrate that wastewater monitoring offers early and reliable population-level results for establishing the extent and spread of emerging pathogens including SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background Organ transplant recipients are at increased vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 due to immunosuppression and may pose a continued transmission risk especially within hospital settings. Detailed case reports including symptoms, viral load and infectiousness, defined by the presence of replication-competent viruses in culture, provide an opportunity to examine the relationship between clinical course, burden and contagiousness, and provide guidance on release from isolation. Objectives We performed a systematic review to investigate the relationship in transplant recipients between serial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value or cycle of quantification value (Cq), or other measures of viral burden and the likelihood and duration of the presence of infectious virus based on viral culture including the influence of age, sex, underlying pathologies, degree of immunosuppression, and/or vaccination on this relationship. Methods We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and WHO Covid-19 databases, from 1 November 2019 until 31 December 2021. We included studies reporting relevant data for transplantees with SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from serial RT-PCR testing and viral culture data from the same respiratory samples. We assessed methodological quality using five criteria, and synthesised the data narratively and graphically. Results We included 10 case reports and case series reporting on 38 transplantees. We observed a relationship between proxies of viral burden and likelihood of shedding replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Two individuals shed replication-competent viruses over 100 days after infection onset. Lack of standardisation of testing and reporting platforms precludes establishing a definitive viral burden cut-off. However, most transplantees stopped shedding competent viruses when the RT-PCR cycle threshold was above 30 despite differences across platforms. Conclusions Viral burden is a reasonable proxy for infectivity when considered within the context of the clinical status of each patient. Standardised study design and reporting are essential to standardise guidance based on an increasing evidence base.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to evaluate the role of viral cultures for assessing airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The review will address the following research questions: Are airborne samples infectious? If so, what proportion are infectious, and what is the distance and duration of infectiousness in the air? What is the relationship between infectiousness and airborne PCR cycle threshold (Ct)? Is there evidence of a chain of transmission that establishes an actual instance of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2? What circumstances might facilitate infectious viruses being airborne over long distances? We will search LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and the WHO Covid-19 database to identify relevant studies. We will include studies reporting airborne transmission attempting viral culture or serial qRT-PCR with or without genomic sequencing. Predictive or modelling studies will be excluded. We will assess the quality of included studies using previously published criteria.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
This is the protocol for a systematic review focussing on people receiving solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Our research questions are as follows: What is the relationship between serial PCR Ct value or other measures of viral burden, and the likelihood and duration of the presence of infectious virus from viral culture, among transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection? What is the influence of age, sex, underlying pathologies, degree of immunosuppression, vaccination status, COVID-19 symptoms and COVID-19 disease course on viral burden and the likelihood of presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2? We will include single studies reporting serial Cts from sequential rt-PCR testing or other measures of viral burden such as RNA gene copies of respiratory samples (from nasopharyngeal specimens) along with viral culture data on the same samples, from patients about to receive a transplant or who are post transplant with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
SUMMARY Background Multiply drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in hospitals and long-term care facilities (LTCFs) of particular concern include meticillin-resistant S taphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter species and extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing organisms. Respiratory viruses include influenza and SARS-CoV-2. Aim To assess effectiveness of cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in hospitals and LTCFs. Methods CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Medline, and Scopus searched inception to 28 June 2021, no language restrictions, for randomized controlled trials, cleaning, disinfection, hospitals, LTCFs. Abstracts and titles were assessed and data abstracted independently by two authors. Findings Of fourteen c-RCTs in hospitals and LTCFs, interventions in ten were focused on reducing patient infections of four MDROs and/or healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). In four c-RCTs patient MDRO and/or HAI rates were significantly reduced with cleaning and disinfection strategies including bleach, quaternary ammonium detergents, ultraviolet irradiation, hydrogen peroxide vapour and copper-treated surfaces or fabrics. Of three c-RCTs focused on reducing MRSA rates, one had significant results and one on Clostridioides difficile had no significant results. Heterogeneity of populations, methods, outcomes and data reporting precluded meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias assessment was low but high for allocation concealment, and GRADE assessment was low risk. No study assessed biofilms. Conclusions Ten c-RCTs focused on reducing multiple MDROs and/or HAIs and four had significant reductions. Three c-RCTs reported only patient MRSA colonization rates (one significant reductions), and one focused on Clostridioides difficile (no significant differences). Standardised primary and secondary outcomes are required for future c-RCTs including detailed biofilm cleaning/disinfection interventions.
ABSTRACT
Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is an emerging surveillance tool that has been used to monitor the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic by tracking SARS-CoV-2 RNA shed into wastewater. WBE was performed to monitor the occurrence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 from three wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) and six neighborhoods in the city of Calgary, Canada (population 1.3 million). A total of 222 WWTP and 192 neighborhood samples were collected from June 2020 to May 2021, encompassing the end of the first-wave (June 2020), the second-wave (November end to December, 2020) and the third-wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (mid-April to May, 2021). Flow-weighted 24-hour composite samples were processed to extract RNA that was then analyzed for two SARS-CoV-2-specific regions of the nucleocapsid gene, N1 and N2, using reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Using this approach SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 98.06 percent (406/414) of wastewater samples. SARS-CoV-2 RNA abundance was compared to clinically diagnosed COVID-19 cases organized by the three-digit postal code of affected individuals primary residences, enabling correlation analysis at neighborhood, WWTP and city-wide scales. Strong correlations were observed between N1 and N2 gene signals in wastewater and new daily cases for WWTPs and neighborhoods. Similarly, when flow rates at Calgarys three WWTPs were used to normalize observed concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and combine them into a city-wide signal, this was strongly correlated with regionally diagnosed COVID-19 cases and clinical test percent positivity rate. Linked census data demonstrated disproportionate SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater from areas of the city with lower socioeconomic status and more racialized communities. WBE across a range of urban scales was demonstrated to be an effective mechanism of COVID-19 surveillance.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Pneumonia from SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to distinguish from other viral and bacterial etiologies. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials are frequently prescribed to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 which potentially acts as a catalyst for the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis during the first 18 months of the pandemic to quantify the prevalence and types of resistant co-infecting organisms in patients with COVID-19 and explore differences across hospital and geographic settings.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (BioSIS), and Scopus from November 1, 2019 to May 28, 2021 to identify relevant articles pertaining to resistant co-infections in patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Patient- and study-level analyses were conducted. We calculated pooled prevalence estimates of co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms using random effects models. Stratified meta-analysis by hospital and geographic setting was also performed to elucidate any differences. ResultsOf 1331 articles identified, 38 met inclusion criteria. A total of 1959 unique isolates were identified with 29% (569) resistant organisms identified. Co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms ranged from 0.2 to 100% among included studies. Pooled prevalence of co-infection with resistant bacterial and fungal organisms was 24% (95% CI: 8-40%; n=25 studies: I 2 =99%) and 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1-0.6%; n=8 studies: I 2 =78%), respectively. Among multi-drug resistant organisms, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida auris were most commonly reported. Stratified analyses found higher proportions of AMR outside of Europe and in ICU settings, though these results were not statistically significant. Patient-level analysis demonstrated >50% (n=58) mortality, whereby all but 6 patients were infected with a resistant organism. ConclusionsDuring the first 18 months of the pandemic, AMR was moderately prevalent in COVID-19 patients and varied by hospital and geography although there was substantial heterogeneity. Given the variation in patient populations within these studies, clinical settings, practice patterns, and definitions of AMR, further research is warranted to quantify AMR in COVID-19 patients to improve surveillance programs, infection prevention and control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programs globally.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Klebsiella InfectionsABSTRACT
Background: Pneumonia from SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to distinguish from other viral and bacterial etiologies. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials are frequently prescribed to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 which potentially acts as a catalyst for the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis during the first 18 months of the pandemic to quantify the prevalence and types of resistant co-infecting organisms in patients with COVID-19 and explore differences across hospital and geographic settings.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (BioSIS), and Scopus from November 1, 2019 to May 28, 2021 to identify relevant articles pertaining to resistant co-infections in patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Patient- and study-level analyses were conducted. We calculated pooled prevalence estimates of co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms using random effects models. Stratified meta-analysis by hospital and geographic setting was also performed to elucidate any differences.Results: Of 1331 articles identified, 38 met inclusion criteria. A total of 1959 unique isolates were identified with 29% (569) resistant organisms identified. Co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms ranged from 0·2 to 100% among included studies. Pooled prevalence of co-infection with resistant bacterial and fungal organisms was 24% (95% CI: 8-40%; n=25 studies: I 2 =99%) and 0·3% (95% CI: 0·1-0·6%; n=8 studies: I 2 =78%), respectively. Among multi-drug resistant organisms, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida auris were most commonly reported. Stratified analyses found higher proportions of AMR outside of Europe and in ICU settings, though these results were not statistically significant. Patient-level analysis demonstrated >50% (n=58) mortality, whereby all but 6 patients were infected with a resistant organism.Conclusions: During the first 18 months of the pandemic, AMR was moderately prevalent in COVID-19 patients and varied by hospital and geography although there was substantial heterogeneity. Given the variation in patient populations within these studies, clinical settings, practice patterns, and definitions of AMR, further research is warranted to quantify AMR in COVID-19 patients to improve surveillance programs, infection prevention and control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programs globally.Funding: The Antimicrobial Resistance - One Health Consortium is funded through the Major Innovation Fund Program of the Ministry of Jobs, Economy, and Innovation (JEI), Government of Alberta, Canada.Declaration of Interest: We declare no competing interests.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Klebsiella InfectionsABSTRACT
Background The transmission role of SARS-Cov-2 infected persons who develop symptoms post testing (pre symptomatics) or not at all throughout the course of positivity (asymptomatics) is unknown. We carried out a systematic review of available evidence to determine whether they were infectious or not and if so for how long and their probable contribution to the pandemic spread of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 databases and reference lists of included studies. Search terms were COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, transmission, asymptomatic, presymptomatic and appropriate synonyms. Searches were carried out to 31 March 2021. We included studies on people exposed to SARS CoV-2 within 2-14 days (incubation time) of close contact or suspected community or institutional exposure to index asymptomatic (at the time of observation) infected individuals, as defined in the study. We included studies with a proven or hypothesised chain of transmission with secondary case infected based on fulfilling a confirmed or probable case definition and confirmation of infectiousness and transmission outcome based either on serial PCR cycle threshold readings or viral culture or gene sequencing or any combination thereof and adequate follow up. We assessed the reliability of symptom and sign survey compatible with contemporary knowledge and extracted documentation of the likelihood of transmission, presence of replicating virus and/or documentation of phylodynamics (genetic sequence lineage) and/or adequate follow-up and reporting of symptoms and signs. We wrote to all included studies corresponding authors to request further details and assessed likelihood of transmission using adapted causality criteria. Results We included 18 studies from a variety of settings. Because of the current lack of standardized methodology and clear reporting criteria there was substantial methodological variation in transmission studies. Asymptomatic prevalence at the time of initial testing varied from 12.5% to 100% and of these 6% to 100% were pre-symptomatic cases, depending on the setting and the methods of case ascertainment and the population. Nursing/care home facilities reported high rates of presymptomatic: 50% - 100% (n=3 studies). Fifteen studies were classified as high risk and three studies at moderate risk of symptom ascertainment bias. In practice, this assessment means that high-risk studies may be less likely to distinguish between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Six of the asymptomatic studies and four presymptomatic studies reported growing infectious virus although the data was too sparse to determine duration of infectiousness. Three studies were judged as providing possible and three of probable/likely evidence of asymptomatic transmission of SARs-CoV-2. Five studies provided evidence of possible and two of probable/likely presymptomatic transmission of SARs-CoV-2. Author response rate was 100%. Conclusions Reliable studies included here provide probable evidence of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Single point in time estimates and binary PCR testing alone cannot provide reliable information on symptom status and information on infectivity. The number of studies and asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases eligible for inclusion was low, with more data and international standardisation of methods needed to further reduce uncertainty.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background The role of cases of SARS-CoV-2 who remain without symptoms throughout the active phase of the disease (asymptomatics) and those who have not developed symptoms yet when surveyed (pre-symptomatics) is at present unclear, despite the important role that they may play in infecting third parties. There is also a lack of clarity on the role of pauci-symptomatic persons with COVID-19 and the degree to which they may be associated with transmission compared to fully symptomatic persons. Methods We will search LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database using Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, transmission, and appropriate synonyms as search terms. We will also search the reference lists of included studies are searched for additional relevant studies. We will include studies of people exposed to SARS CoV-2 within 2-14 days (incubation time) of close contact or suspected community or institutional exposure to index asymptomatic infected individuals, as defined in each study with secondary case(s) infected. We will only include studies which provide microbiological proof of transmission outcome (culturable virus and /or genic sequencing). The inclusion of higher-quality evidence should overcome the methodological shortcomings of lower quality studies. We will assess quality of the chain of transmission evidence, microbiological proof and adequacy of follow up and symptom monitoring. Expected results We intend to present the evidence in three distinct packages: study description, methodological quality assessment and data extracted. We intend summarising the evidence and drawing conclusions
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessary to protect front-line healthcare personnel. These shortages underscore the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate SARS-CoV-2-exposed PPE enabling safe reuse of masks and respirators. Efficient decontamination must be available not only in low-resourced settings, but also in well-resourced settings affected by PPE shortages. Methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, hitherto with many clinical applications including those used to inactivate virus in plasma, presents a novel approach for widely applicable PPE decontamination. Dry heat (DH) treatment is another potential low-cost decontamination method. MethodsMB and light (MBL) and DH treatments were used to inactivate coronavirus on respirator and mask material. We tested three N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), two medical masks (MMs), and one cloth community mask (CM). FFR/MM/CM materials were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 (a Betacoronavirus), murine hepatitis virus (MHV) (a Betacoronavirus), or porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) (an Alphacoronavirus), and treated with 10 {micro}M MB followed by 50,000 lux of broad-spectrum light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes, or with 75{degrees}C DH for 60 minutes. In parallel, we tested respirator and mask integrity using several standard methods and compared to the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. Intact FFRs/MMs/CM were subjected to five cycles of decontamination (5CD) to assess integrity using International Standardization Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) test methods. FindingsOverall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all three coronaviruses with at least a 4-log reduction. DH yielded similar results, with the exception of MHV, which was only reduced by 2-log after treatment. FFR/MM integrity was maintained for 5 cycles of MBL or DH treatment, whereas one FFR failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. Baseline performance for the CM was variable, but reduction of integrity was minimal. InterpretationMethylene blue with light and DH treatment decontaminated masks and respirators by inactivating three tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5CD. MBL decontamination of masks is effective, low-cost and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in all-resource settings. These attractive features support the utilization and continued development of this novel PPE decontamination method.
Subject(s)
Hepatitis, Viral, Human , Masked Hypertension , Photophobia , COVID-19 , Heat StrokeABSTRACT
Recently published transcriptomic data of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus show that there is a large variation in the frequency and steady state levels of subgenomic mRNA sequences. This variation is derived from discontinuous subgenomic RNA synthesis where the polymerase switches template from a 3 proximal genome body sequence to a 5 untranslated leader sequence. This leads to a fusion between the common 5 leader sequence and a 3 proximal body sequence in the RNA product. This process revolves around a common core sequence (CS) that is present at both the template sites that make up the fusion junction. Base-pairing between the leader CS and the nascent complementary minus strand body CS, and flanking regions (together called the transcription regulating sequence, TRS) is vital for this template switching event. However, various factors can influence the site of template switching within the same TRS duplex. Here, we model the duplexes formed between the leader and complementary body TRS regions, hypothesising the role of the stability of the TRS duplex in determining the major sites of template switching for the most abundant mRNAs. We indicate that the stability of secondary structures and the speed of transcription play key roles in determining the probability of template switching in the production of subgenomic RNAs.
ABSTRACT
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 crisis, the handling of biological samples from confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals demanded the use of inactivation protocols to ensure laboratory operators safety. While not standardized, these practices can be roughly divided in two categories, namely heat inactivation and solvent-detergent treatments. As such, these routine procedures should also apply to samples intended for Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) analysis. Assessing the impact of virus inactivating pre-treatments is therefore of pivotal importance, given the well-known variability introduced by different pre-analytical steps on downstream EVs isolation and analysis. Arguably, shared guidelines on inactivation protocols tailored to best address EVs-specific requirements will be needed among the EVs community, yet deep investigations in this direction havent been reported so far. In the attempt of sparking interest on this highly relevant topic, we here provide preliminary insights on SARS-CoV-2 inactivation practices to be adopted prior serum EVs analysis by comparing solvent/detergent treatment vs. heat inactivation. Our analysis entailed the evaluation of EVs recovery and purity along with biochemical, biophysical and biomolecular profiling by means of Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis, Western Blotting, Atomic Force Microscopy, miRNA content (digital droplet PCR) and tetraspanin assessment by microarrays. Our data suggest an increase in ultracentrifugation (UC) recovery following heat-treatment, however accompanied by a marked enrichment in EVs-associated contaminants. On the contrary, solvent/detergent treatment is promising for small EVs (< 150 nm range), yet a depletion of larger vesicular entities was detected. This work represents a first step towards the identification of optimal serum inactivation protocols targeted to EVs analysis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Abstract OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of eye protection, face masks, or person distancing on interrupting or reducing the spread of respiratory viruses. DESIGN: Update of a Cochrane review that included a meta-analysis of observational studies during the SARS outbreak of 2003. DATA SOURCES: Eligible trials from the previous review; search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase and CINAHL from October 2010 up to 1 April 2020; and forward and backward citation analysis. DATA SELECTION: Randomised and cluster-randomised trials of people of any age, testing the use of eye protection, face masks, or person distancing against standard practice, or a similar physical barrier. Outcomes included any acute respiratory illness and its related consequences. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Six authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. We used a generalised inverse variance method for pooling using a random-effects model and reported results with risk ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 15 randomised trials investigating the effect of masks (14 trials) in healthcare workers and the general population and of quarantine (1 trial). We found no trials testing eye protection. Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50). There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators: for ILI (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.08), for influenza (Risk Ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.43). Harms were poorly reported and limited to discomfort with lower compliance. The only trial testing quarantining workers with household ILI contacts found a reduction in ILI cases, but increased risk of quarantined workers contracting influenza. All trials were conducted during seasonal ILI activity. CONCLUSIONS: Most included trials had poor design, reporting and sparse events. There was insufficient evidence to provide a recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures. We found insufficient evidence for a difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators and limited evidence to support effectiveness of quarantine. Based on observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic included in the previous version of our Cochrane review we recommend the use of masks combined with other measures.