ABSTRACT
Background: The SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected positive again after discharged from hospital in some COVID-19 patients, with or without clinical symptoms such as fever or dry cough. Methods 1008 severe COVID-19 patients, with SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive detected with the mixed specimen of nasopharyngeal swab and oropharyngeal swab by real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), were selected to monitor SARS-CoV-2 RNA with the 12 types of specimens by RT-qPCR during hospitalization. All of 20 discharged cases with COVID-19 were selected to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in isolation period with 7 types of specimens by RT-qPCR before releasing the isolation period. Results Of the enrolled 1008 severe patients, the nasopharyngeal swab specimens showed the highest positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA (71.06%), followed by alveolar lavage fluid (66.67%), oropharyngeal swab (30.77%), sputum (28.53%), urine (16.30%), blood (12.5%), stool (12.21%), anal swab (11.22%) and corneal secretion (2.99%), and SARS-CoV-2 RNA couldn’t be detected in other types of specimen in this study. Of the 20 discharged cases during the isolation period, the positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was 30% (6/20); 2 cases were positive in sputum at the eighth and ninth day after discharge, respectively. 1 case was positive in nasopharynx swab at the sixth day after discharge, 1 case was positive in anal swab at the eighth day after discharge, and 1 case was positive in 3 specimens ( nasopharynx swab , oropharynx swab and sputum) simultaneously at the fourth day after discharge; no positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in other specimens including stool, urine and blood at the discharged patients. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 RNA should be detected in multiple specimens, such as nasopharynx swab, oropharynx swab, sputum, and if necessary, stool and anal swab specimens should be performed simultaneously at discharge when the patients were considered for clinical cure and before releasing the isolation period.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , FeverABSTRACT
Objective@#To investigate the positive rate for 2019-nCoV tests and co-infections in Wuhan district.@*Methods@#A total of 8 274 cases in Wuhan were enrolled in this cross-sectional study during January 20 to February 9, 2020, and were tested for 2019-nCoV using fluorescence quantitative PCR. Both respiratory tract samples (nasopharynx, oropharynx, sputum and alveolar lavage fluid) and non-respiratory tract samples (urine, feces, anal swabs, blood and conjunctival sac swabs) were collected. If both orf1ab and N genes are positive, they are classified as nucleic acid test positive group; if both orf1ab and N genes are negative, they are classified as negative group; if single gene target is positive, they are classified as suspicious group. Individuals were divided into male group and female group according to sex. At the same time, 316 patients were tested for 13 respiratory pathogens by multiplex PCR.@*Results@#Among the 8 274 subjects, 2 745 (33.2%) were 2019-nCoV infected; 5 277 (63.8%) subjects showed negative results in the 2019-nCoV nucleic acid test; and 252 cases (3.05%) was not definitive (inconclusive result). The age of cases with COVID-19 patients and inconclusive cases was significantly higher than that of cases without 2019-nCoV infection (40 vs 56, t=27.569, P<0.001; 52 vs 56, t=6.774, P<0.001). The positive rate of 13 respiratory pathogens multiple tests was significantly lower in 104 subjects who were positive for 2019-nCoV compared with those in subjects who were negative for 2019-nCoV test (5.77% vs 18.39%, χ2=24.105, P=0.003). Four types of respiratory tract samples and five types of non-respiratory tract samples were found to be positive for 2019-nCoV nucleic acid test.@*Conclusion@#The 2019-nCoV nucleic acid positive rate in male is higher than in female. Co-infections should be pay close attention in COVID-19 patients. 2019-nCoV nucleic acid can be detected in non-respiratory tract samples.
ABSTRACT
Background: 2019-Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreaks create challenges for hospital laboratories because thousands of samples must be evaluated each day. Sample types, interpretation methods, and corresponding laboratory standards must be established. The possibility of other infections should be assessed to provide a basis for clinical classification, isolation, and treatment. Accordingly, in the present study, we evaluated the testing methods for 2019-nCoV and co-infections. Methods: We used a fluorescence-based quantitative PCR kit urgently distributed by the Chinese CDC to detect 8274 close contacts in the Wuhan region against two loci on the 2019-nCoV genome. We also analyzed 613 patients with fever who underwent multiple tests for 13 respiratory pathogens; 316 subjects were also tested for 2019-nCoV. Findings: Among the 8274 subjects, 2745 (33.2%) had 2019-nCoV infection; 5277 (63.8%) subjects showed negative results in the 2019-nCoV nucleic acid test (non-019-nCoV); and 252 cases (3.0%) because only one target was positive, the diagnosis was not definitive. Sixteen patients who originally had only one positive target were re-examined a few days later; 14 patients (87.5%) were finally defined as 2019-nCoV-positive, and 2 (12.5%) were finally defined as negative. The positive rates of nCoV-NP and nCovORF1ab were 34.7% and 34.7%, respectively. nCoV-NP-positive only and nCovORF1ab-positive cases accounted for 1.5% and 1.5%, respectively. In the 316 patients with multiple respiratory pathogens, 104 were positive for 2019-nCov and 6/104 had co-infection with coronavirus (3/104), influenza A virus (2/104), rhinovirus (2/104), and influenza A H3N2 (1/104); the remaining 212 patients had influenza A virus (11/202), influenza A H3N2 (11/202), rhinovirus (10/202), respiratory syncytial virus (7/202), influenza B virus (6/202), metapneumovirus (4/202), and coronavirus (2/202). Interpretation: Clinical testing methods for 2019-nCoV require improvement. Importantly, 5.8% of 2019-nCoV infected and 18.4% of non-2019-nCoV-infected patients had other pathogen infections. It is important to treat combined infections and perform rapid screening to avoid cross-contamination of patients. A test that quickly and simultaneously screens as many pathogens as possible is needed.