Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
IDCases ; 31: e01699, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2179289

ABSTRACT

The neurologic complications associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is becoming more prevalent in children after the appearance of the Omicron strain. An association between COVID-19 and posterior reversible encephalopathy (PRES) has been consistently reported in adults, but little information is available in the pediatric age group. There are only few case reports of COVID-19-related PRES in children, and all of these patients were either on some type of immunomodulatory medications or whose general condition was severe. The present case, a 9-year-old Japanese boy, who had no fever but vomited several times from days 1-4 of a COVID-19 infection had an afebrile seizure on the 8th day of his illness. The patient had no history of hypertension, and had not previously been administered any immunosuppressive drugs before or during the period of his COVID-19 infection. On admission, his physical findings were unremarkable, except for a high blood pressure. The results obtained by brain computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were consistent with PRES. The patient recovered with no sequelae after treatment with antihypertensive drugs. Further investigations did not suggest any underlying disease that could have caused the transient hypertension. Although PRES is relatively rare in children, pediatricians should keep in mind that this syndrome can be complicated, even in children with mild COVID-19 infections.

3.
Med (N Y) ; 2(3): 263-280.e6, 2021 03 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284368

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Scaling SARS-CoV-2 testing to meet demands of safe reopenings continues to be plagued by assay costs and supply chain shortages. In response, we developed SalivaDirect, which received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: We simplified our saliva-based diagnostic test by (1) not requiring collection tubes with preservatives, (2) replacing nucleic acid extraction with a simple enzymatic and heating step, and (3) testing specimens with a dualplex qRT-PCR assay. Moreover, we validated SalivaDirect with reagents and instruments from multiple vendors to minimize supply chain issues. FINDINGS: From our hospital cohort, we show a high positive agreement (94%) between saliva tested with SalivaDirect and nasopharyngeal swabs tested with a commercial qRT-PCR kit. In partnership with the National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), we tested 3,779 saliva specimens from healthy individuals and detected low rates of invalid (0.3%) and false-positive (<0.05%) results. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that saliva is a valid alternative to swabs for SARS-CoV-2 screening and that SalivaDirect can make large-scale testing more accessible and affordable. Uniquely, we can designate other laboratories to use our sensitive, flexible, and simplified platform under our EUA (https://publichealth.yale.edu/salivadirect/). FUNDING: This study was funded by the NBA and NBPA (N.D.G.), the Huffman Family Donor Advised Fund (N.D.G.), a Fast Grant from Emergent Ventures at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (N.D.G.), the Yale Institute for Global Health (N.D.G.), and the Beatrice Kleinberg Neuwirth Fund (A.I.K.). C.B.F.V. is supported by NWO Rubicon 019.181EN.004.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Laboratories , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva
5.
PLoS Biol ; 18(10): e3000867, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-901993

ABSTRACT

The current quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) assay recommended for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing in the United States requires analysis of 3 genomic targets per sample: 2 viral and 1 host. To simplify testing and reduce the volume of required reagents, we devised a multiplex RT-qPCR assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 in a single reaction. We used existing N1, N2, and RP primer and probe sets by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but substituted fluorophores to allow multiplexing of the assay. The cycle threshold (Ct) values of our multiplex RT-qPCR were comparable to those obtained by the single assay adapted for research purposes. Low copy numbers (≥500 copies/reaction) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA were consistently detected by the multiplex RT-qPCR. Our novel multiplex RT-qPCR improves upon current single diagnostics by saving reagents, costs, time, and labor.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Case-Control Studies , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/virology , DNA Primers/standards , HEK293 Cells , Humans , Limit of Detection , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
7.
Nat Microbiol ; 5(10): 1299-1305, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-638387

ABSTRACT

The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are being used by clinical, research and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear whether results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to make independent evaluations of primer-probe sets used in four common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays. From our comparisons of RT-qPCR analytical efficiency and sensitivity, we show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 at 500 viral RNA copies per reaction. The exception for this is the RdRp-SARSr (Charité) confirmatory primer-probe set which has low sensitivity, probably due to a mismatch to circulating SARS-CoV-2 in the reverse primer. We did not find evidence for background amplification with pre-COVID-19 samples or recent SARS-CoV-2 evolution decreasing sensitivity. Our recommendation for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is to select an assay with high sensitivity and that is regionally used, to ease comparability between outcomes.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Genetic Variation , Genome, Viral , Humans , Molecular Probe Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , RNA/genetics , RNA Probes/genetics , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL