Mouth rinses efficacy on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load: A randomized clinical trial.

Considering the global trend to confine the COVID-19 pandemic by applying various preventive health measures, preprocedural mouth rinsing has been proposed to mitigate the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 in dental clinics. The study aimed to investigate the effect of different mouth rinses on salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients. This study was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, six-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial that investigated the effect of four mouth rinses (1% povidone-iodine, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride, and 80 ppm hypochlorous acid) on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load relative to the distilled water and no-rinse control groups. The viral load was measured by quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) at baseline and 5, 30, and 60 min post rinsing. The viral load pattern within each mouth rinse group showed a reduction overtime; however, this reduction was only statistically significant in the hydrogen peroxide group. Further, a significant reduction in the viral load was observed between povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and cetylpyridinium chloride compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, indicating their late antiviral potential. Interestingly, a similar statistically significant reduction was also observed in the distilled water control group compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, proposing mechanical washing of the viral particles through the rinsing procedure. Therefore, results suggest using preprocedural mouth rinses, particularly hydrogen peroxide, as a risk-mitigation step before dental procedures, along with strict adherence to other infection control measures.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Binding and Neutralizing Antibodies in Healthcare Workers during the Epidemic Peak in Referral Hospitals and Quarantine Sites: Saudi Arabia.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population. Here, we aimed to evaluate and characterize the SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity rate in randomly collected samples among HCWs from the largest referral hospitals and quarantine sites during the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic in the city of Jeddah, the second largest city in Saudi Arabia, using a cross-sectional analytic study design. Out of 693 participants recruited from 29 June to 10 August 2020, 223 (32.2%, 95% CI: 28.8-35.8) were found to be confirmed seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and among those 197 (88.3%) had never been diagnosed with COVID-19. Seropositivity was not significantly associated with participants reporting COVID-19 compatible symptoms as most seropositive HCW participants 140 (62.8%) were asymptomatic. The large proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases detected in our study demands periodic testing as a general hospital policy.

Performance of Commercially Available Rapid Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread globally. Although several rapid commercial serological assays have been developed, little is known about their performance and accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patient samples. Here, we have evaluated the performance of seven commercially available rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) obtained from different manufacturers, and compared them to in-house developed and validated ELISA assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all evaluated LFIA assays showed high specificity, our data showed a significant variation in sensitivity of these assays, which ranged from 0% to 54% for samples collected early during infection (3-7 days post symptoms onset) and from 54% to 88% for samples collected at later time points during infection (8-27 days post symptoms onset). Therefore, we recommend prior evaluation and validation of these assays before being routinely used to detect IgM and IgG in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, our findings suggest the use of LFIA assays in combination with other standard methods, and not as an alternative.

SARS-CoV-2 S1 and N-based serological assays reveal rapid seroconversion and induction of specific antibody response in COVID-19 patients.

As the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2, continues to spread rapidly around the world, there is a need for well validated serological assays that allow the detection of viral specific antibody responses in COVID-19 patients or recovered individuals. In this study, we established and used multiple indirect Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)-based serological assays to study the antibody response in COVID-19 patients. In order to validate the assays we determined the cut off values, sensitivity and specificity of the assays using sera collected from pre-pandemic healthy controls, COVID-19 patients at different time points after disease-onset, and seropositive sera to other human coronaviruses (CoVs). The developed SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit of the spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid (N)-based ELISAs not only showed high specificity and sensitivity but also did not show any cross-reactivity with other CoVs. We also show that all RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients tested in our study developed both virus specific IgM and IgG antibodies as early as week one after disease onset. Our data also suggest that the inclusion of both S1 and N in serological testing would capture as many potential SARS-CoV-2 positive cases as possible than using any of them alone. This is specifically important for tracing contacts and cases and conducting large-scale epidemiological studies to understand the true extent of virus spread in populations.