ABSTRACT
Background SARS-CoV-2 viral load and kinetics assessed in serial blood samples from hospitalised COVID-19 patients by RT-PCR are poorly understood. Methods We conducted an observational, prospective case series study in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Clinical outcome data (Intensive Care Unit admission and mortality) were collected from all patients until discharge. Viremia was determined longitudinally during hospitalisation, in plasma and serum samples using two commercial and standardised RT-PCR techniques approved for use in diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Viral load (copies/mL and log10) was determined with quantitative TaqPath TM COVID-19 test. Results SARS-CoV-2 viremia was studied in 57 hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Persistent viremia (PV) was defined as two or more quantifiable viral loads detected in blood samples (plasma/serum) during hospitalisation. PV was detected in 16 (28%) patients. All of them, except for one who rapidly progressed to death, cleared viremia during hospitalisation. Poor clinical outcome occurred in 62.5% of patients with PV, while none of the negative patients or those with sporadic viremia presented this outcome (p<0.0001). Viral load was significantly higher in patients with PV than in those with Sporadic Viremia (p<0.05). Patients presented PV for a short period of time: median time from admission was 5 days (Range=2-12) and 4.5 days (Range=2-8) for plasma and serum samples, respectively. Similar results were obtained with all RT-PCR assays for both types of samples. Conclusions Detection of persistent SARS-CoV-2 viremia, by real time RT-PCR, expressed as viral load over time, could allow identifying hospitalised COVID-19 patients at risk of poor clinical outcome.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , ViremiaABSTRACT
The term chimeric virus was not popular in the last decades. Recently, according to current sequencing efforts in discovering COVID-19 Secrets, the generated information assumed the presence of 6 Coronavirus main strains, but coronavirus diverges into hundreds of sub-strains. the bottleneck is the mutation rate. With two mutation/month, humanity will meet a new sub-strain every month. Tracking new sequenced viruses is urgently needed because of the pathogenic effect of the new sub-strains. here we introduce COVATOR, A user-friendly and python-based software that identifies viral chimerism. COVATOR aligns input genome and protein that has no known source, against genomes and protein with known source, then gives the user a graphical summary.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum (viraemia) in COVID-19 patients has been related to poor prognosis and death. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of two commercial reverse real-time-PCR (rRT-PCR) kits, cobas SARS-CoV-2 (Cobas test) and TaqPath COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (Taqpath test), to detect viraemia in COVID-19 patients and their implementation as routine diagnosis in microbiology laboratory. This retrospective cohort study was conducted with 203 adult patients admitted to Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, (89 Intensive Care Unit and 114 ward) with at least one serum sample collected in the first 48 hours from admission. A total 265 serum samples were included for study. Evaluation of both rRT-PCR techniques was performed comparing with the gold standard, a Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit; considering at least one target as a positive result. Comparison of Cobas test and Taqpath test with the gold standard method, showed high values of specificity (93.75 and 92.19 respectively) and Positive Predictive Value (92.92 and 99.88 respectively). Nevertheless, sensitivity (53.72 and 73.63 respectively) and Negative Predictive Value (32.53 and 42.99 respectively) were lower; Kappa values were 0.35 for cobas test and 0.56 for Taqpath test. For both techniques, differences of viraemia detection between the ICU and non-ICU patients were significant (p<0.001). Consequently, SARS-CoV-2 viraemia positive results obtained by both rRT-PCR should be considered good tools and may help in handling COVID-19 patients. Moreover, these methods could be easily integrated in the routine laboratory COVID-19 diagnosis and may open new strategies based on an early COVID-19 treatment.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , DeathABSTRACT
BackgroundAntibody detection is essential to establish exposure, infection and immunity to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to perform epidemiological studies. The worlwide urge for new diagnostic tools to control the pandemic has led to a quick in- corporation in clinical practice of the recently developed serological assays.MethodsWe evaluated the diagnostic accuracy to detect Ig G, Ig M+A and/or IgA anti SARS-CoV-2 of 10 different assays: 3 Lateral Flow card inmunoassays, 4 en- zyme-linked inmunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) and 3 chemiluminescent particle immunoassays (CMIA). Using PCR for COVID-19 as gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were determined. Each assay was tested in 2 groups: Positive Controls, formed by 50 sera from 50 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneu- monia with positive PCR; Negative Controls, formed by 50 sera from 50 pa- tients with respiratory infection non-COVID-19.ResultsSensitivity range of the 10 assays evaluated for patients with positive COVID-19 PCR was 40-77% (65-81% considering IgG plus IgM). Specificity ranged 83-100%. VPP and VPN were respectively 81-100% and 61.6-81%.ConclusionsResults obtained varied widely among the assays evaluated.Highest diagnostic accuracy was obtained with ELISA and CMIAs, but they last much longer.