Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 25
Filter
1.
Immunity ; 55(7): 1299-1315.e4, 2022 07 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1977374

ABSTRACT

As the establishment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific T cell memory in children remains largely unexplored, we recruited convalescent COVID-19 children and adults to define their circulating memory SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells prior to vaccination. We analyzed epitope-specific T cells directly ex vivo using seven HLA class I and class II tetramers presenting SARS-CoV-2 epitopes, together with Spike-specific B cells. Unvaccinated children who seroconverted had comparable Spike-specific but lower ORF1a- and N-specific memory T cell responses compared with adults. This agreed with our TCR sequencing data showing reduced clonal expansion in children. A strong stem cell memory phenotype and common T cell receptor motifs were detected within tetramer-specific T cells in seroconverted children. Conversely, children who did not seroconvert had tetramer-specific T cells of predominantly naive phenotypes and diverse TCRαß repertoires. Our study demonstrates the generation of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory with common TCRαß motifs in unvaccinated seroconverted children after their first virus encounter.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes , Epitopes, T-Lymphocyte , Humans , Immunologic Memory , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell, alpha-beta/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
2.
ACS Nano ; 2022 Jun 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1908087

ABSTRACT

Humans commonly have low level antibodies to poly(ethylene) glycol (PEG) due to environmental exposure. Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 contain small amounts of PEG, but it is not known whether PEG antibodies are enhanced by vaccination and what their impact is on particle-immune cell interactions in human blood. We studied plasma from 130 adults receiving either the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) mRNA vaccines or no SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for PEG-specific antibodies. Anti-PEG IgG was commonly detected prior to vaccination and was significantly boosted a mean of 13.1-fold (range 1.0-70.9) following mRNA-1273 vaccination and a mean of 1.78-fold (range 0.68-16.6) following BNT162b2 vaccination. Anti-PEG IgM increased 68.5-fold (range 0.9-377.1) and 2.64-fold (0.76-12.84) following mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. The rise in PEG-specific antibodies following mRNA-1273 vaccination was associated with a significant increase in the association of clinically relevant PEGylated LNPs with blood phagocytes ex vivo. PEG antibodies did not impact the SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibody response to vaccination. However, the elevated levels of vaccine-induced anti-PEG antibodies correlated with increased systemic reactogenicity following two doses of vaccination. We conclude that PEG-specific antibodies can be boosted by LNP mRNA vaccination and that the rise in PEG-specific antibodies is associated with systemic reactogenicity and an increase of PEG particle-leukocyte association in human blood. The longer-term clinical impact of the increase in PEG-specific antibodies induced by lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccines should be monitored. It may be useful to identify suitable alternatives to PEG for developing next-generation LNP vaccines to overcome PEG immunogenicity in the future.

4.
Lancet Reg Health West Pac ; 25: 100486, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1867463

ABSTRACT

Background: Early, rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential in healthcare settings in order to implement appropriate infection control precautions and rapidly assign patients to care pathways. Rapid testing methods, such as SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) may improve patient care, despite a lower sensitivity than real-time PCR (RT-PCR) testing. Methods: Patients presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) in Melbourne, Australia, were risk-stratified for their likelihood of active COVID-19 infection, and a non-randomised cohort of patients were tested by both Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag test (RAT) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Patients with a positive RAT in the 'At or High Risk' COVID-19 group were moved immediately to a COVID-19 ward rather than waiting for a RT-PCR result. Clinical and laboratory data were assessed to determine test performance characteristics; and length of stay in the ED was compared for the different patient cohorts. Findings: Analysis of 1762 paired RAT/RT-PCR samples demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 75.5% (206/273; 95% CI: 69·9-80·4) for the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-12 Ag test, with specificity of 100% (1489/1489; 95% CI: 99·8-100). Sensitivity improved with increasing risk for COVID-19 infection, from 72·4% (95% CI: 52·8-87·3) in the 'No Risk' cohort to 100% (95% CI: 29·2-100) in the 'High Risk' group. Time in the ED for the 'At/High Risk' group decreased from 421 minutes (IQR: 281, 525) for those with a positive RAT result to 274 minutes (IQR:140, 425) for those with a negative RAT result, p = 0.02. Interpretation: The positive predictive value of a positive RAT in this setting was high, allowing more rapid instigation of COVID-19 care pathways and an improvement in patient flow within the ED. Funding: Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

5.
SSRN;
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-325804

ABSTRACT

Background: Early, rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential in healthcare settings in order to implement appropriate infection control precautions and rapidly assign patients to appropriate care pathways. Rapid testing methods, such as SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) may improve patient care, despite a lower sensitivity than real-time PCR (RT-PCR) testing. Methods: Symptomatic patients presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) in Melbourne, Australia, were risk stratified for their likelihood of active COVID-19 infection, and tested by both Abbott Panbio™ COVID-12 Ag test and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Patients with a positive RAT in the ‘At or High Risk’ COVID-19 group were moved immediately to a COVID-19 ward rather than waiting for a RT-PCR result. Clinical and laboratory data were extracted to determine test performance characteristics and length of stay in the ED. Findings: Analysis of 1762 paired RAT/RT-PCR samples demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 75.5% (95% CI: 69·9-80·4) for the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-12 Ag test, with specificity of 100% (95% CI: 99·8-100). Sensitivity improved with increasing risk for COVID-19 infection, from 72·4% (95% CI: 52·8-87·3) in the ‘No Risk’ cohort to 100% (95% CI: 29·2-100) in the ‘High Risk’ group. Time in the ED for the ‘At/High Risk’ group decreased from 421 minutes (IQR: 281, 525) to 274 minutes (140, 425), p = 0.02. Interpretation: The positive predictive value of a positive RAT in this setting was high, allowing more rapid instigation of COVID-19 positive care pathways and an improvement in patient flow within the ED.

6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-313938

ABSTRACT

Although pregnancy poses a greater risk for severe COVID-19, the underlying immunological changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy are poorly understood. We defined immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in pregnant and non-pregnant women during acute and convalescent COVID-19 up to 258 days post symptom onset, quantifying 217 immunological parameters. Additionally, matched maternal and cord blood were collected from COVID-19 convalescent pregnancies. Although serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 were similar in pregnant and non-pregnant women, cellular immune analyses revealed marked differences in key NK cell and unconventional T cell responses during COVID-19 in pregnant women. While NK, γδ T cells and MAIT cells displayed pre-activated phenotypes in healthy pregnant women when compared to non-pregnant age-matched women, activation profiles of these pre-activated NK and unconventional T cells remained unchanged at acute and convalescent COVID-19 in pregnancy. Conversely, activation dynamics of NK and unconventional T cells were prototypical in non-pregnant women in COVID-19. In contrast, activation of αβ CD4 + and CD8 + T cells, T follicular helper cells and antibody-secreting cells was similar in pregnant and non-pregnant women with COVID-19. Elevated levels of IL-1β, IFN-γ, IL-8, IL-18 and IL-33 were also found in pregnant women in their healthy state, and these cytokine levels remained elevated during acute and convalescent COVID-19. Collectively, our study provides the first comprehensive map of longitudinal immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women, providing insights into patient management and education during COVID-19 pregnancy.

7.
Intern Med J ; 51(12): 2129-2132, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583530

ABSTRACT

We report four cases of invasive pulmonary aspergillus co-infection in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillus terreus were isolated, with early infection onset following ICU admission. Clinicians should be aware of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in ICU patients with COVID-19 infection, particularly those receiving dexamethasone. We propose screening of these high-risk patients with twice-weekly fungal culture from tracheal aspirate and, if feasible, Aspergillus polymerase chain reaction. Diagnosis is challenging and antifungal treatment should be considered in critically ill patients who have new or worsening pulmonary changes on chest imaging and mycological evidence of infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/diagnosis , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/drug therapy , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
8.
EBioMedicine ; 74: 103729, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1555409

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are now being rolled out, a better understanding of immunity to the virus, whether from infection, or passive or active immunisation, and the durability of this protection is required. This will benefit from the ability to measure antibody-based protection to SARS-CoV-2, ideally with rapid turnaround and without the need for laboratory-based testing. METHODS: We have developed a lateral flow POC test that can measure levels of RBD-ACE2 neutralising antibody (NAb) from whole blood, with a result that can be determined by eye or quantitatively on a small instrument. We compared our lateral flow test with the gold-standard microneutralisation assay, using samples from convalescent and vaccinated donors, as well as immunised macaques. FINDINGS: We show a high correlation between our lateral flow test with conventional neutralisation and that this test is applicable with animal samples. We also show that this assay is readily adaptable to test for protection to newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the beta variant which revealed a marked reduction in NAb activity. Lastly, using a cohort of vaccinated humans, we demonstrate that our whole-blood test correlates closely with microneutralisation assay data (specificity 100% and sensitivity 96% at a microneutralisation cutoff of 1:40) and that fingerprick whole blood samples are sufficient for this test. INTERPRETATION: Taken together, the COVID-19 NAb-testTM device described here provides a rapid readout of NAb based protection to SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care. FUNDING: Support was received from the Victorian Operational Infrastructure Support Program and the Australian Government Department of Health. This work was supported by grants from the Department of Health and Human Services of the Victorian State Government; the ARC (CE140100011, CE140100036), the NHMRC (1113293, 2002317 and 1116530), and Medical Research Future Fund Awards (2005544, 2002073, 2002132). Individual researchers were supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leadership Level 1 Investigator Grants (1194036), NHMRC APPRISE Research Fellowship (1116530), NHMRC Leadership Investigator Grant (1173871), NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship (1137285), NHMRC Investigator Grants (1177174 and 1174555) and NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowships (1117766 and 1136322). Grateful support was also received from the A2 Milk Company and the Jack Ma Foundation.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/immunology , Point-of-Care Systems , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Animals , Australia , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Macaca/immunology , Neutralization Tests , Vaccination
11.
Med J Aust ; 215(6): 273-278, 2021 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1319820

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the concordance and acceptability of saliva testing with standard-of-care oropharyngeal and bilateral deep nasal swab testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in children and in general practice. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study. SETTING: Royal Children's Hospital, and two general practices (cohealth, West Melbourne; Cirqit Health, Altona North) in Melbourne, July-October 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 1050 people who provided paired saliva and oropharyngeal-nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of cases in which SARS-CoV-2 was detected in either specimen type by real-time polymerase chain reaction; concordance of results for paired specimens; positive percent agreement (PPA) for virus detection, by specimen type. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 54 of 1050 people with assessable specimens (5%), including 19 cases (35%) in which both specimens were positive. The overall PPA was 72% (95% CI, 58-84%) for saliva and 63% (95% CI, 49-76%) for oropharyngeal-nasal swabs. For the 35 positive specimens from people aged 10 years or more, PPA was 86% (95% CI, 70-95%) for saliva and 63% (95% CI, 45-79%) for oropharyngeal-nasal swabs. Adding saliva testing to standard-of-care oropharyngeal-nasal swab testing increased overall case detection by 59% (95% CI, 29-95%). Providing saliva was preferred to an oropharyngeal-nasal swab by most participants (75%), including 141 of 153 children under 10 years of age (92%). CONCLUSION: In children over 10 years of age and adults, saliva testing alone may be suitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, while for children under 10, saliva testing may be suitable as an adjunct to oropharyngeal-nasal swab testing for increasing case detection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/virology , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva/virology , Young Adult
12.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(7): ofab239, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1309620

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Serological testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) complements nucleic acid tests for patient diagnosis and enables monitoring of population susceptibility to inform the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response. It is important to understand the reliability of assays with different antigen or antibody targets to detect humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to understand how antibody (Ab) binding assays compare to those detecting neutralizing antibody (nAb), particularly as we move into the era of vaccines. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of 6 commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), including a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), for detection of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins (IgA, IgM, IgG), total or nAb. A result subset was compared with a cell culture-based microneutralization (MN) assay. We tested sera from patients with prior reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, prepandemic sera, and potential cross-reactive sera from patients with other non-COVID-19 acute infections. RESULTS: For sera collected >14 days post-symptom onset, the assay achieving the highest sensitivity was the Wantai total Ab at 100% (95% CI, 94.6%-100%), followed by 93.1% for Euroimmun NCP-IgG, 93.1% for GenScript sVNT, 90.3% for Euroimmun S1-IgG, 88.9% for Euroimmun S1-IgA, and 83.3% for Wantai IgM. Specificity for the best-performing assay was 99.5% for the Wantai total Ab, and for the lowest-performing assay it was 97.1% for sVNT (as per the Instructions for Use [IFU]). The Wantai Total Ab had the best agreement with MN at 98% followed by Euroimmun S1-IgA, Euro NCP-IgG, and sVNT (as per IFU) with 97%, 97% and 95%, respectively; Wantai IgM had the poorest agreement at 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Performance characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 serology assays detecting different antibody types are consistent with those found in previously published reports. Evaluation of the surrogate virus neutralization test in comparison to the Ab binding assays and a cell culture-based neutralization assay showed good result correlation between all assays. However, correlation between the cell-based neutralization test and some assays detecting Ab's not specifically involved in neutralization was higher than with the sVNT. This study demonstrates the reliability of different assays to detect the humoral immune response following SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be used to optimize serological test algorithms for assessing antibody responses post-SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination.

14.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e045975, 2021 06 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282097

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The threat of a pandemic, over and above the disease itself, may have significant and broad effects on a healthcare system. We aimed to describe the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (during a relatively low transmission period) and associated societal restrictions on presentations, admissions and outpatient visits. DESIGN: We compared hospital activity in 2020 with the preceding 5 years, 2015-2019, using a retrospective cohort study design. SETTING: Quaternary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department presentations, hospital admissions and outpatient visits from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2020, n=896 934 episodes of care. INTERVENTION: In Australia, the initial peak COVID-19 phase was March-April. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Separate linear regression models were fitted to estimate the impact of the pandemic on the number, type and severity of emergency presentations, hospital admissions and outpatient visits. RESULTS: During the peak COVID-19 phase (March and April 2020), there were marked reductions in emergency presentations (10 389 observed vs 14 678 expected; 29% reduction; p<0.05) and hospital admissions (5972 observed vs 8368 expected; 28% reduction; p<0.05). Stroke (114 observed vs 177 expected; 35% reduction; p<0.05) and trauma (1336 observed vs 1764 expected; 24% reduction; p<0.05) presentations decreased; acute myocardial infarctions were unchanged. There was an increase in the proportion of hospital admissions requiring intensive care (7.0% observed vs 6.0% expected; p<0.05) or resulting in death (2.2% observed vs 1.5% expected; p<0.05). Outpatient attendances remained similar (30 267 observed vs 31 980 expected; 5% reduction; not significant) but telephone/telehealth consultations increased from 2.5% to 45% (p<0.05) of total consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Although case numbers of COVID-19 were relatively low in Australia during the first 6 months of 2020, the impact on hospital activity was profound.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Humans , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data
16.
Lancet Reg Health West Pac ; 9: 100115, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1117260

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Australia, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on RT-PCR testing which is relatively costly and time-consuming. To date, few studies have assessed the performance and implementation of rapid antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 testing in a setting with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infections, such as Australia. METHODS: This study recruited participants presenting for COVID-19 testing at three Melbourne metropolitan hospitals during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence. The Abbott PanBioTM COVID-19 Ag point-of-care test was performed alongside RT-PCR. In addition, participants with COVID-19 notified to the Victorian Government were invited to provide additional swabs to aid validation. Implementation challenges were also documented. FINDINGS: The specificity of the Abbott PanBioTM COVID-19 Ag test was 99.96% (95% CI 99.73 - 100%). Sensitivity amongst participants with RT-PCR-confirmed infection was dependent upon the duration of symptoms reported, ranging from 77.3% (duration 1 to 33 days) to 100% in those within seven days of symptom onset. A range of implementation challenges were identified which may inform future COVID-19 testing strategies in a low prevalence setting. INTERPRETATION: Given the high specificity, antigen-based tests may be most useful in rapidly triaging public health and hospital resources while expediting confirmatory RT-PCR testing. Considering the limitations in test sensitivity and the potential for rapid transmission in susceptible populations, particularly in hospital settings, careful consideration is required for implementation of antigen testing in a low prevalence setting. FUNDING: This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. The funder was not involved in data analysis or manuscript preparation.

18.
Pathology ; 52(7): 754-759, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1044714

ABSTRACT

The unprecedented scale of testing required to effectively control the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated urgent implementation of rapid testing in clinical microbiology laboratories. To date, there are limited data available on the analytical performance of emerging commercially available assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and integration of these assays into laboratory workflows. Here, we performed a prospective validation study of a commercially available assay, the AusDiagnostics Coronavirus Typing (8-well) assay. Respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing were collected between 1 March and 25 March 2020. All positive samples and a random subset of negative samples were sent to a reference laboratory for confirmation. In total, 2673 samples were analysed using the Coronavirus Typing assay. The predominant sample type was a combined nasopharyngeal/throat swab (2640/2673; 98.8%). Fifty-four patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (2.0%) using the Coronavirus Typing assay; 53/54 (98.1%) positive results and 621/621 (100%) negative results were concordant with the reference laboratory. Compared to the reference laboratory gold standard, sensitivity of the Coronavirus Typing assay for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% (95% CI 93.2-100%), specificity 99.8% (95% CI 99.1-100%), positive predictive value 98.1% (95% CI 90.2-99.7%) and negative predictive value 100% (95% CI 99.4-100%). In many countries, standard regulatory requirements for the introduction of new assays have been replaced by emergency authorisations and it is critical that laboratories share their post-market validation experiences, as the consequences of widespread introduction of a suboptimal assay for SARS-CoV-2 are profound. Here, we share our in-field experience, and encourage other laboratories to follow suit.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Workflow
19.
J Med Microbiol ; 70(2)2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955729

ABSTRACT

Saliva has recently been proposed as a suitable specimen for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Use of saliva as a diagnostic specimen may present opportunities for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing in remote and low-resource settings. Determining the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva over time is an important step in determining optimal storage and transport times. We undertook an in vitro study to assess whether SARS-CoV-2 could be detected in contrived saliva samples. The contrived saliva samples comprised 10 ml pooled saliva spiked with gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 to achieve a concentration of 2.58×104 copies ml SARS-CoV-2, which was subsequently divided into 2 ml aliquots comprising: (i) neat saliva; and a 1 : 1 dilution with (ii) normal saline; (iii) viral transport media, and (iv) liquid Amies medium. Contrived samples were made in quadruplicate, with two samples of each stored at either: (i) room temperature or (ii) 4 °C. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in all SARS-CoV-2 spiked samples at time point 0, day 1, 3 and 7 at both storage temperatures using the N gene RT-PCR assay and time point 0, day 1 and day 7 using the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA) RT-PCR assay. The ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in saliva over a 1 week period is an important finding that presents further opportunities for saliva testing as a diagnostic specimen for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva/virology , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL