Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
1.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2022 Jun 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1906906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on healthcare workers'risk (HCWs) of COVID-19 working in primary care, long-term-care facilities or hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April-9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) were invited by email to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use over the 10-day period preceding inclusion. Risk factors were analyzed using multivariable conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2076 cases and 2076 matched controls were included. The analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted odd ratio, 19.9 [95% confidence intervaI, 12.4-31.9]), an infected colleague (2.26 [1.53-3.33]) or COVID-19 patients (2.37 [1.66-3.40]), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial (0.30 [0.22-0.40]) or complete (0.19 [0.14-0.27]) immunization was protective. Eye protection (0.57 [0.37-0.87]) and wearing a gown (0.58 [0.34-0.97]) for COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (1.47 [1.00-2.18]). Protection of N95 respirators and surgical facemasks did not differ. Compared to medical professions, being a nurse (3.79 [2.50-5.76]) or a nurse's aide (9.08 [5.30-15.5]) was associated with COVID-19. Results were consistent across all healthcare settings. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.

2.
Int J Infect Dis ; 118: 144-149, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1838857

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rhinoviruses are commonly considered simple "common cold" agents. The link between their molecular epidemiology and patient clinical presentation and outcomes remains unclear in adult populations. MATERIALS/METHODS: All nasopharyngeal or bronchoalveolar lavages were screened using multiplex PCR in 3 Parisian hospitals from January 2018 to September 2018. For all detected rhinoviruses, the VP2/VP4 region was subtyped by sequencing. RESULTS: The study included 178 unique patients who were positive for human rhinovirus (HRV). They were primarily men (56%), with a median age of 62.2 years (IQR: 46.8-71.4), frequently presenting chronic respiratory diseases (56%) and/or immunosuppression (46%). Of these, 63% were admitted for respiratory distress, including 25% for pneumonia; 95 (53%), 27 (15%), and 56 (32%) were positive for HRV-A, -B, and -C, respectively. HRV-B appeared to be more associated with immunosuppressive treatments (58% vs 30% and 36% of patients for HRV-A and -C, respectively, p = 0.038), higher coinfection rates (54% vs 34% and 23%, p = 0.03), and higher intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates (35% vs 17% and 13%, p = 0.048). Conversely, HRV-A was more frequently associated with pneumonia (54% vs 31% and 11% for HRV-B and -C, respectively, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high proportion of chronic respiratory diseases or immunosuppression among hospitalized patients infected with a rhinovirus. IMPORTANT: Human rhinoviruses (HRVs) are frequently detected in patients hospitalized for respiratory distress. Understanding their molecular differences is crucial to finding target treatments and improving patient outcomes.


Subject(s)
Picornaviridae Infections , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Tract Infections , Adult , Aged , Enterovirus , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Phylogeny , Picornaviridae Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Rhinovirus/genetics
3.
Med Lav ; 113(2): e2022022, 2022 Apr 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1818998

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Characterizing immunological response following COVID-19 vaccination is an important public health issue. The objectives of the present analysis were to investigate the proportion, level and the determinants of humoral response from 21 days to three months after the first dose in vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We abstracted data on level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies (IgG) and sociodemographic characteristics of 17,257 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from three centers in Northern Italy who underwent COVID-19 vaccination (average 70.6 days after first dose). We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models and combined them using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: A humoral response was elicited in 99.3% of vaccinated HCW. Female sex, young age, and previous COVID-19 infection were predictors of post-vaccination antibody level, and a positive association was also detected with pre-vaccination serology level and with time between pre- and post-vaccination testing, while a decline of antibody level was suggested with time since vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: These results stress the importance of analyzing retrospective data collected via occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the COVID-19 epidemic and following vaccination. They need to be confirmed in larger series based on prospectively collected data.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA, Viral , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/methods
4.
Respir Med Res ; 81: 100892, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1805072

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chest computed tomography (CT) was reported to improve the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) as compared to chest X-ray (CXR). The aim of this study is to describe the CT-patterns of CAP in a large population visiting the emergency department and to see if some of them are more frequently missed on CXR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an ancillary analysis of the prospective multicenter ESCAPED study including 319 patients. We selected the 163 definite or probable CAP based on adjudication committee classification; 147 available chest CT scans were reinterpreted by 3 chest radiologists to identify CAP patterns. These CT-patterns were correlated to epidemiological, biological and microbiological data, and compared between false negative and true positive CXR CAP. RESULTS: Six patterns were identified: lobar pneumonia (51/147, 35%), including 35 with plurifocal involvement; lobular pneumonia (43/147, 29%); unilobar infra-segmental consolidation (24/147, 16%); bronchiolitis (16/147, 11%), including 4 unilobar bronchiolitis; atelectasis and bronchial abnormalities (8/147, 5.5%); interstitial pneumonia (5/147, 3.5%). Bacteria were isolated in 41% of patients with lobar pneumonia-pattern (mostly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumonia) versus 19% in other patients (p = 0.01). Respiratory viruses were equally distributed within all patterns. CXR was falsely negative in 46/147 (31%) patients. Lobar pneumonia was significantly less missed on CXR than other patterns (p = 0.003), especially lobular pneumonia and unilobar infra-segmental consolidation, missed in 35% and 58% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Lobar and lobular pneumonias are the most frequent CT-patterns. Lobar pneumonia is appropriately detected on CXR and mainly due to Streptococcus pneumoniae or Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Chest CT is very useful to identify CAP in other CT-patterns. Prior the COVID pandemic, CAP was rarely responsible for interstitial opacities on CT.


Subject(s)
Bronchiolitis , COVID-19 , Community-Acquired Infections , Pneumonia, Mycoplasma , Pneumonia, Pneumococcal , Community-Acquired Infections/diagnostic imaging , Community-Acquired Infections/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Pneumonia, Mycoplasma/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Mycoplasma/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Pneumococcal/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Pneumococcal/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Streptococcus pneumoniae , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
5.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-329525

ABSTRACT

Objectives Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of contracting coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) than the general population. This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on that risk for HCWs working in primary care, long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) or hospitals. Methods We conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April–9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) recruited by email were invited to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use. Questions covered the 10 days preceding symptom onset for cases (or testing if asymptomatic) or inclusion for controls. Results A total of 4152 matched cases and controls were included. The multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted odds ratio, 19.9 [95% confidence intervaI, 12.4–31.9]), an infected colleague (2.26 [1.53–3.33]) or COVID-19 patients (2.37 [1.66–3.40]), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial or complete immunization was protective. Eye protection (0.57 [0.37–0.87]) and wearing a gown (0.58 [0.34–0.97]) during COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (1.47 [1.00–2.18]). N95-respirator protection was comparable to that of surgical masks. Results were consistent across healthcare-facility categories. Conclusions HCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.

6.
Int J Infect Dis ; 112: 247-253, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1654532

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Few studies have reported clinical COVID-19 sequelae six months (M6) after hospital discharge, but none has studied symptom severity. METHODS: Prevalence and severity of 7 symptoms were estimated until M6 using the self-administered influenza severity scale in COVID-19 hospitalized patients enrolled in the French COVID cohort. Factors associated with severity were assessed by logistic regression. Anxiety, depression and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were also assessed. RESULTS: At M6, among the 324 patients (median age 61 years, 63% men, 19% admitted to intensive care during the acute phase), 187/324 (58%) reported at least one symptom, mostly fatigue (47%) and myalgia (23%). Symptom severity was scored, at most, mild in 125 (67%), moderate in 44 (23%) and severe in 18 (10%). Female gender was the sole factor associated with moderate/severe symptom reporting (OR = 1.98, 95%CI=1.13-3.47). Among the 225 patients with psychological assessment, 24 (11%) had anxiety, 18 (8%) depressive symptoms, and their physical HRQL was significantly poorer than the general population (p=0.0005). CONCLUSION: Even if 58% of patients reported ≥1 symptom at M6, less than 7% rated any symptom as severe. Assessing symptoms severity could be helpful to identify patients requiring appropriate medical care. Women may require special attention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report
7.
Life (Basel) ; 12(2)2022 Jan 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1649724

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several generic variants emerged, including the Alpha variant, with increased transmissibility compared to historical strains. We aimed to compare the evolution of the viral load between patients infected with the Alpha variant and those infected with the historical SARS-CoV-2 strains, while taking into account the time interval between the onset of symptoms and samples. We used data collected from patients with an acute respiratory infection (mild to moderate symptoms) and seen in consultation in primary care, included in a prospective longitudinal study, COVID-A. Patients performed four salivary samples during the follow-up. All patients who had at least one of the saliva samples test positive for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the analysis. Overall, 118 patients were included: 89 infected by the historical strain and 29 infected by the Alpha variant. Even though we tended to observe a higher viral load in the Alpha variant group, we found no significant difference in the evolution of the viral load in saliva samples between patients infected with the Alpha variant of the SARS-CoV-2 and those infected by historical strains when controlling for the time interval between the onset of symptoms and sampling.

9.
Infect Dis Now ; 52(1): 40-43, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568740

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Measuring vaccine effectiveness (VE) using real-life data is critical to confirm the effectiveness of licensed vaccine, which could strengthen vaccination adherence. METHODS: We measured VE against adult COVID-19 hospitalization in five hospitals in France using a test negative design. We compared the odds of vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with the odds of vaccinated patients hospitalized for the same symptoms with a negative test. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients (463 cases and 390 controls) were included, with a total of 170 patients vaccinated (104 with one dose, 65 with two doses, and one with three doses). There were four cases of breakthrough infections, all in immunocompromised patients. The VE was 84.0% (CI0.95=[72.6; 90.6]) for one dose and 96.2% (CI0.95=[86.8; 98.9]) for two doses. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the high VE of COVID-19 vaccine in France to prevent hospitalizations due to the alpha variant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines , Case-Control Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccine Efficacy
10.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 76(Supplement_3): iii20-iii27, 2021 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493833

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Virus-associated respiratory infections are in the spotlight with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the expanding use of multiplex PCR (mPCR). The impact of molecular testing as a point-of-care test (POCT) in the emergency department (ED) is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of a syndromic test performed in the ED as a POCT and in the central laboratory on length of stay (LOS), antibiotic use and single-room assignment. METHODS: From 19 November 2019 to 9 March 2020, adults with acute respiratory illness seeking care in the ED of a large hospital were enrolled, with mPCR performed with a weekly alternation in the ED as a POCT (week A) or in the central laboratory (week B). RESULTS: 474 patients were analysed: 275 during A weeks and 199 during B weeks. Patient characteristics were similar. The hospital LOS (median 7 days during week A versus 7 days during week B, P = 0.29), the proportion of patients with ED-LOS <1 day (63% versus 60%, P = 0.57) and ED antibiotic prescription (59% versus 58%, P = 0.92) were not significantly different. Patients in the POCT arm were more frequently assigned a single room when having a positive PCR for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and metapneumovirus [52/70 (74%) versus 19/38 (50%) in the central testing arm, P = 0.012]. CONCLUSIONS: Syndromic testing performed in the ED compared with the central laboratory failed to reduce the LOS or antibiotic consumption in patients with acute respiratory illness, but was associated with an increased single-room assignment among patients in whom a significant respiratory pathogen was detected.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Point-of-Care Systems , Adult , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Length of Stay , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 118(8)2021 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066042

ABSTRACT

The characterization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral kinetics in hospitalized patients and its association with mortality is unknown. We analyzed death and nasopharyngeal viral kinetics in 655 hospitalized patients from the prospective French COVID cohort. The model predicted a median peak viral load that coincided with symptom onset. Patients with age ≥65 y had a smaller loss rate of infected cells, leading to a delayed median time to viral clearance occurring 16 d after symptom onset as compared to 13 d in younger patients (P < 10-4). In multivariate analysis, the risk factors associated with mortality were age ≥65 y, male gender, and presence of chronic pulmonary disease (hazard ratio [HR] > 2.0). Using a joint model, viral dynamics after hospital admission was an independent predictor of mortality (HR = 1.31, P < 10-3). Finally, we used our model to simulate the effects of effective pharmacological interventions on time to viral clearance and mortality. A treatment able to reduce viral production by 90% upon hospital admission would shorten the time to viral clearance by 2.0 and 2.9 d in patients of age <65 y and ≥65 y, respectively. Assuming that the association between viral dynamics and mortality would remain similar to that observed in our population, this could translate into a reduction of mortality from 19 to 14% in patients of age ≥65 y with risk factors. Our results show that viral dynamics is associated with mortality in hospitalized patients. Strategies aiming to reduce viral load could have an effect on mortality rate in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Models, Theoretical , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Viral Load , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , France/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Kinetics , Male , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/genetics , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Survival Rate
15.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0243261, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1004446

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid identification of patients with high suspicion of COVID-19 will become a challenge with the co-circulation of multiple respiratory viruses (RVs). We have identified clinical or biological characteristics to help distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other RVs. METHODS: We used a prospective cohort including all consecutive patients admitted through the emergency department's (ED) and presenting respiratory symptoms from November 2019 to April 2020. Patients were tested for RV using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. RESULTS: 203/508 patients were positive for an RV during the non-SARS-CoV-2 epidemic period (November to February), and 268/596 patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic (March to April). Younger age, male gender, fever, absence of expectoration and absence of chronic lung disease were statistically associated with SARS-CoV-2 detection. Combining these variables allowed for the distinguishing of SARS-CoV-2 infections with 83, 65, 75 and 76% sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients' characteristics associated with a positive PCR are common between SARS-CoV-2 and other RVs, but a simple discrimination of strong SARS-CoV-2 suspicion with a limited set of clinical features seems possible. Such scoring could be useful but has to be prospectively evaluated and will not eliminate the need for rapid PCR assays.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/statistics & numerical data , Point-of-Care Testing/statistics & numerical data
16.
Infection ; 48(4): 489-495, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725942

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To describe the burden, and characteristics, of influenza-like illness (ILI) associated with non-influenza respiratory viruses (NIRV). METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter, observational study of adults admitted with ILI during three influenza seasons (2012-2015). Patients were screened for picornavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), coronavirus, human metapneumovirus, adenovirus, bocavirus, parainfluenza virus, and influenza, by PCR on nasopharyngeal samples. We excluded patients coinfected with NIRV and influenza. RESULTS: Among 1421 patients enrolled, influenza virus was detected in 535 (38%), and NIRV in 215 (15%), mostly picornavirus (n = 61), RSV (n = 53), coronavirus 229E (n = 48), and human metapneumovirus (n = 40). In-hospital mortality was 5% (NIRV), 4% (influenza), and 5% (no respiratory virus). As compared to influenza, NIRV were associated with age (median, 73 years vs. 68, P = 0.026), chronic respiratory diseases (53% vs. 45%, P = 0.034), cancer (14% vs. 9%, P = 0.029), and immunosuppressive drugs (21% vs. 14%, P = 0.028), and inversely associated with diabetes (18% vs. 25%, P = 0.038). On multivariable analysis, only chronic respiratory diseases (OR 1.5 [1.1-2.0], P = 0.008), and diabetes (OR 0.5 [0.4-0.8], P = 0.01) were associated with NIRV detection. CONCLUSIONS: NIRV are common in adults admitted with ILI during influenza seasons. Outcomes are similar in patients with NIRV, influenza, or no respiratory virus.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Viruses/isolation & purification , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Coinfection/virology , Humans , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Viruses/classification
17.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(10): e261-e267, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-662911

ABSTRACT

Health-care workers are crucial to any health-care system. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers are at a substantially increased risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and could come to considerable harm as a result. Depending on the phase of the pandemic, patients with COVID-19 might not be the main source of SARS-CoV-2 infection and health-care workers could be exposed to atypical patients, infected family members, contacts, and colleagues, or live in communities of active transmission. Clear strategies to support and appropriately manage exposed and infected health-care workers are essential to ensure effective staff management and to engender trust in the workplace. These management strategies should focus on risk stratification, suitable clinical monitoring, low-threshold access to diagnostics, and decision making about removal from and return to work. Policy makers need to support health-care facilities in interpreting guidance during a pandemic that will probably be characterised by fluctuating local incidence of SARS-CoV-2 to mitigate the impact of this pandemic on their workforce.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Guidelines as Topic , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Return to Work , Risk Management , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(6): 697-706, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-17918

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On Dec 31, 2019, China reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia in people at Wuhan, Hubei Province. The responsible pathogen is a novel coronavirus, named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We report the relevant features of the first cases in Europe of confirmed infection, named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with the first patient diagnosed with the disease on Jan 24, 2020. METHODS: In this case series, we followed five patients admitted to Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital (Paris, France) and Pellegrin University Hospital (Bordeaux, France) and diagnosed with COVID-19 by semi-quantitative RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. We assessed patterns of clinical disease and viral load from different samples (nasopharyngeal and blood, urine, and stool samples), which were obtained once daily for 3 days from hospital admission, and once every 2 or 3 days until patient discharge. All samples were refrigerated and shipped to laboratories in the National Reference Center for Respiratory Viruses (The Institut Pasteur, Paris, and Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France), where RNA extraction, real-time RT-PCR, and virus isolation and titration procedures were done. FINDINGS: The patients were three men (aged 31 years, 48 years, and 80 years) and two women (aged 30 years and 46 years), all of Chinese origin, who had travelled to France from China around mid-January, 2020. Three different clinical evolutions are described: (1) two paucisymptomatic women diagnosed within a day of exhibiting symptoms, with high nasopharyngeal titres of SARS-CoV-2 within the first 24 h of the illness onset (5·2 and 7·4 log10 copies per 1000 cells, respectively) and viral RNA detection in stools; (2) a two-step disease progression in two young men, with a secondary worsening around 10 days after disease onset despite a decreasing viral load in nasopharyngeal samples; and (3) an 80-year-old man with a rapid evolution towards multiple organ failure and a persistent high viral load in lower and upper respiratory tract with systemic virus dissemination and virus detection in plasma. The 80-year-old patient died on day 14 of illness (Feb 14, 2020); all other patients had recovered and been discharged by Feb 19, 2020. INTERPRETATION: We illustrated three different clinical and biological types of evolution in five patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 with detailed and comprehensive viral sampling strategy. We believe that these findings will contribute to a better understanding of the natural history of the disease and will contribute to advances in the implementation of more efficient infection control strategies. FUNDING: REACTing (Research & Action Emerging Infectious Diseases).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Blood/virology , COVID-19 , China , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Feces/virology , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel , Urine/virology , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL