Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
2.
Journal of Clinical Investigation ; 131(7):12, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1255760

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND. Circulating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA may represent a more reliable indicator of infection than nasal RNA, but quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) lacks diagnostic sensitivity for blood samples. METHODS. A CRISPR-augmented RT-PCR assay that sensitively detects SARS-CoV-2 RNA was employed to analyze viral RNA kinetics in longitudinal plasma samples from nonhuman primates (NHPs) after virus exposure;to evaluate the utility of blood SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis in adults cases confirmed by nasal/ nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR results;and to identify suspected COVID-19 cases in pediatric and at-risk adult populations with negative nasal swab RT-qPCR results. All blood samples were analyzed by RT-qPCR to allow direct comparisons. RESULTS. CRISPR-augmented RT-PCR consistently detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the plasma of experimentally infected NHPs from 1 to 28 days after infection, and these increases preceded and correlated with rectal swab viral RNA increases. In a patient cohort (n = 159), this blood-based assay demonstrated 91.2% diagnostic sensitivity and 99.2% diagnostic specificity versus a comparator RT-qPCR nasal/nasopharyngeal test, whereas RT-qPCR exhibited 44.1% diagnostic sensitivity and 100% specificity for the same blood samples. This CRISPR-augmented RT-PCR assay also accurately identified patients with COVID-19 using one or more negative nasal swab RT-qPCR results. CONCLUSION. Results of this study indicate that sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in blood by CRISPR-augmented RT-PCR permits accurate COVID-19 diagnosis, and can detect COVID-19 cases with transient or negative nasal swab RT-qPCR results, suggesting that this approach could improve COVID-19 diagnosis and the evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 infection clearance, and predict the severity of infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT04358211.

3.
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi ; 36(8): 679-685, 2020 Aug 20.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-46647

ABSTRACT

Objective: To study the clinical application effect of modified nasopharyngeal swab sampling for 2019 novel coronavirus nucleic acid detection. Methods: This study covered the period from January 14 to March 1, 2020.The supine position method and the protective face screen were used to collect nasopharyngeal swabs from February 24 onwards, before which, the nasopharyngeal swabs were collected by sitting position method. All the patients who were diagnosed with suspected/confirmed 2019 novel coronavirus infection were admitted from February 19 with the nasopharyngeal swabs collected outside the hospital before admission. (1) Thirty-four swabbing operators meeting the inclusion criteria of the study were recruited in this retrospective cohort study. They were grouped according to the collection method of nasopharyngeal swabs. Sixteen operators of Wuhan Taikang Tongji Hospital who applied the supine position method and the protective face screen were included in supine position method+ protective face screen group (15 males and 1 female, aged 34-49 years); 18 operators (12 from the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (the Third Military Medical University), 1 from Wuhan Jiangxia Mobile Cabin Hospital, 5 from the East District of People's Hospital of Wuhan University) who applied the traditional sitting position method were included in sitting position method group (2 males and 16 females, aged 25-49 years). In supine position method+ protective face screen group, when collecting sample, the patient lay flat and wore a special protective face screen for nasopharyngeal swab sampling, with neck slightly extending and face turning to the opposite side of the operator about 10°. The self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the cooperation, the incidence of nausea, coughing, sneezing, and struggling of patients evaluated by the operators, the operation time for a single swab sample, the fear of operation and the perceived exposure risk of operators in the two groups. (2) Sixty-five patients (22 males and 43 females, aged 25-91 years) admitted to Wuhan Taikang Tongji Hospital who successively received the sitting position method and supine position method+ protective face screen for nasopharyngeal swabs sampling and with complete nucleic acid detection results were included. The positive rates of nucleic acid detection by the two sampling methods of nasopharyngeal swabs of the patients were statistically analyzed. (3) Forty-one patients who could express their feelings accurately were selected out of those 65 patients (12 males and 29 females, aged 27-83 years). The comfort of patients in the process of sampling by the two methods was investigated. (4) Thirty-four patients (10 males and 24 females, aged 25-83 years) with two or more consecutive negative results of nucleic acid detection of nasopharyngeal swabs by sitting position method were selected from the above 65 patients. The positive rate of nucleic acid detection of nasopharyngeal swab of patients by supine position method+ protective face screen, i. e. negative to positive rate was statistically analyzed. Data were statistically analyzed with t test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and chi-square test. Results: (1) Compared with those of sitting position method group, the cooperation score of patients evaluated by the operators in supine position method+ protective face screen group was significantly higher (Z=-4.928, P<0.01), the incidence of nausea, choking cough, sneezing, and struggling of patients evaluated by the operators, and the fear of operation score and the perceived exposure risk score of operators in supine position method+ protective face screen group were significantly lower (Z=-5.071, -5.046, -4.095, -4.397, -4.174, -5.049, P<0.01), and the operation time for a single swab sample in supine position method+ protective face screen group was significantly longer (t=223.17, P<0.01). (2) The positive rate of nucleic acid detection of nasopharyngeal swabs by supine position method+ protective face screen was 60.00% (39/65), which was obviously higher than 41.54% (27/65) by sitting position method (χ(2)=4.432, P<0.05). (3) The comfort score of the 41 patients during nasopharyngeal swabs sampling by supine position method+ protective face screen was significantly higher than that by sitting position method (Z=-5.319, P<0.01). (4) Of the 34 patients with two or more consecutive negative results of nucleic acid detection of nasopharyngeal swabs by sitting position method, the rate of negative to positive of nucleic acid detection was 26.47% (9/34) after sampling by supine position method+ protective face screen. Conclusions: Compared with the traditional sitting position method, detection of 2019 novel coronavirus nucleic acids of nasopharyngeal swabs collected by supine method combined with protective face screen is worth promoting, because of its better comfort of patients, low exposure risk for operators, in addition to reducing in the false negative result to some extent, which may help reduce false recurrence of discharged patients.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nucleic Acids , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL