Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Transfusion ; 2022 Oct 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2088356

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is important to maintain the safety of blood products by avoiding the transfusion of units with known and novel viral pathogens. It is unknown whether COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) may contain pathogenic viruses (either newly acquired or reactivated) that are not routinely screened for by blood centers. METHODS: The DNA virome was characterized in potential CCP donors (n = 30) using viral genome specific PCR primers to identify DNA plasma virome members of the Herpesviridae [Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpesvirus 6A/B, human herpesvirus 7] and Anelloviridae [Torque teno viruses (TTV), Torque teno mini viruses (TTMV), and Torque teno midi viruses (TTMDV)] families. In addition, the RNA plasma virome was characterized using unbiased metagenomic sequencing. Sequencing was done on a HiSeq2500 using high output mode with a read length of 2X100 bp. The sequencing reads were taxonomically classified using Kraken2. CMV and EBV seroprevalence were evaluated using a chemiluminescent immunoassay. RESULTS: TTV and TTMDV were detected in 12 (40%) and 4 (13%) of the 30 study participants, respectively; TTMDV was always associated with infection with TTV. We did not observe TTMV DNAemia. Despite CMV and EBV seroprevalences of 33.3% and 93.3%, respectively, we did not detect Herpesviridae DNA among the study participants. Metagenomic sequencing did not reveal any human RNA viruses in CCP, including no evidence of circulating SARS-CoV-2. DISCUSSION: There was no evidence of pathogenic viruses, whether newly acquired or reactivated, in CCP despite the presence of non-pathogenic Anelloviridae. These results confirm the growing safety data supporting CCP.

2.
Healthcare (Basel) ; 10(3)2022 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1760511

ABSTRACT

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March-July 2020 in Baltimore), emergency department (ED) healthcare workers (HCWs) were considered to be at greater risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Limited data existed, however, on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its impact in this workforce population. We enrolled 191 ED HCWs from a tertiary academic center, administered baseline and weekly surveys, and tested them twice (July and December 2020) for serum antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Approximately 6% (11 of 191, 5.8%) of ED HCWs had spike antibodies in July, a prevalence that doubled by December (21 of 174, 12.1%). A positive PCR test was self-reported by 15 of 21 (71%) seropositive and 6 of 153 (4%) seronegative HCWs (p < 0.001). Of the total 27 HCWs who had antibodies and/or were PCR positive, none required hospitalization, 18 (67%) had a self-perceived COVID-19 illness, and 12 of the 18 reported symptoms. The median number of missed workdays was 8.5 (ranging from 2 to 21). While most seropositive ED HCWs who reported symptoms took work absences, none required hospitalization, indicating that COVID-19's impact on staffing prior to vaccination was not as great as feared.

3.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(1)2020 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-991751

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of an ongoing pandemic that has infected over 36 million and killed over 1 million people. Informed implementation of government public health policies depends on accurate data on SARS-CoV-2 immunity at a population scale. We hypothesized that detection of SARS-CoV-2 salivary antibodies could serve as a noninvasive alternative to serological testing for monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infection and seropositivity at a population scale. We developed a multiplex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassay based on Luminex technology that comprised 12 CoV antigens, mostly derived from SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S). Saliva and sera collected from confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and from the pre-COVID-19 era were tested for IgG, IgA, and IgM to the antigen panel. Matched saliva and serum IgG responses (n = 28) were significantly correlated. The salivary anti-N IgG response resulted in the highest sensitivity (100%), exhibiting a positive response in 24/24 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 cases sampled at >14 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), whereas the salivary anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG response yielded 100% specificity. Temporal kinetics of IgG in saliva were consistent with those observed in blood and indicated that most individuals seroconvert at around 10 DPSO. Algorithms employing a combination of the IgG responses to N and S antigens result in high diagnostic accuracy (100%) by as early as 10 DPSO. These results support the use of saliva-based antibody testing as a noninvasive and scalable alternative to blood-based antibody testing.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/analysis , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Saliva/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
4.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(2)2021 01 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-934065

ABSTRACT

Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparisons of these assays. The performances of 15 different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were compared on a well-characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (collected an average of 45 days after symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the prepandemic era (negative control) that were known to represent infections with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, and C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, and NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed using five lateral flow assays (LFAs) and a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients for whom the time since symptom onset was known. Among the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55% to 97% and from 78% to 100%, respectively. Assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 88% and 80% to 100% for IgM and from 25% to 95% and 90% to 100% for IgG, respectively. Longitudinal testing revealed that the median times after symptom onset to a positive result were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4 to 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR, 6.3 to 11.3) for IgG. The testing performances differed widely among LFAs, with greatest amount of variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was the band most likely to misclassify prepandemic samples. The appearances of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , Cross Reactions , Humans , Immunoassay , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroconversion
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL