Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Health Sci Rep ; 5(4): e554, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1955906

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Several cases of symptomatic reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after full recovery from a prior episode have been reported. As reinfection has become an increasingly common phenomenon, an improved understanding of the risk factors for reinfection and the character and duration of the serological responses to infection and vaccination is critical for managing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We described four cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in individuals representing a spectrum of healthy and immunocompromised states, including (1) a healthy 41-year-old pediatrician, (2) an immunocompromised 31-year-old with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, (3) a healthy 26-year-old pregnant woman, and (4) a 50-year-old with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. We performed confirmatory quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and qualitative immunoglobulin M and quantitative IgG testing on all available patient samples to confirm the presence of infection and serological response to infection. Results: Our analysis showed that patients 1 and 2, a healthy and an immunocompromised patient, both failed to mount a robust serologic response to the initial infection. In contrast, patients 3 and 4, with minimal comorbid disease, both mounted a strong serological response to their initial infection, but were still susceptible to reinfection. Conclusion: Repeat episodes of COVID-19 are capable of occurring in patients regardless of the presence of known risk factors for infection or level of serological response to infection, although this did not trigger critical illness in any instance.

2.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322832

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: For the diagnosis of COVID-19, the yield of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs is unclear, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is obtained to confirm the diagnosis. We assessed the utilisation of bronchoscopy for COVID-19 diagnosis in a multicenter study and compared the diagnostic yield of BAL versus NP swabs. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients who were admitted with clinical presentation concerning for COVID-19 and underwent BAL from 1 March to 31 July 2020 at four tertiary care centres in North America. We also compared concordance of BAL with NP swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients, with clinical suspicion for COVID-19 and admitted for respiratory failure, underwent bronchoscopy to collect BAL for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During the same period, 2039 bronchoscopies were performed on patients not infected with COVID-19. Of 42 patients with NP swabs and BAL collected within ≤7 days, 1 was NP swab negative but positive by BAL for SARS-CoV-2 (n=1/42 (2.4%)). Across a wide array of testing platforms, the overall agreement between NP swabs and BAL results was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.0% to 100%) with Cohen's k of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.00). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of NP swabs compared with BAL were 83.3% (95% CI: 53.5% to 100%), 100%, 100% and 97.3% (95% CI: 92.1% to 100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BAL was used infrequently to assess COVID-19 in busy institutions. NP swabs have a high concordance with BAL for COVID-19 testing, but negative NP swabs should be confirmed with BAL when clinical suspicion is high.


Subject(s)
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/virology , Bronchoscopy/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Aged , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , North America , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies
3.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 42(3): 341-343, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1131954

ABSTRACT

We implemented universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing of patients undergoing surgical procedures as a means to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE). The rate of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was <0.5%, which suggests that early local public health interventions were successful. Although our protocol was resource intensive, it prevented exposures to healthcare team members.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Preoperative Care/methods , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , North Carolina/epidemiology , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution
5.
J Infect Dis ; 222(11): 1798-1806, 2020 11 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-951703

ABSTRACT

During April and May 2020, we studied 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), their hospital rooms (fomites and aerosols), and their close contacts for molecular and culture evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Among >400 samples, we found molecular evidence of virus in most sample types, especially the nasopharyngeal (NP), saliva, and fecal samples, but the prevalence of molecular positivity among fomites and aerosols was low. The agreement between NP swab and saliva positivity was high (89.5%; κ = 0.79). Two NP swabs collected from patients on days 1 and 7 post-symptom onset had evidence of infectious virus (2 passages over 14 days in Vero E6 cells). In summary, the low molecular prevalence and lack of viable SARS-CoV-2 virus in fomites and air samples implied low nosocomial risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through inanimate objects or aerosols.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Fomites/virology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Adult , Aerosols , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Animals , COVID-19/epidemiology , Chlorocebus aethiops , Environmental Microbiology , Feces/virology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Saliva/virology , Vero Cells , Viral Load
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(46): 1743-1747, 2020 Nov 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-937756

ABSTRACT

On university campuses and in similar congregate environments, surveillance testing of asymptomatic persons is a critical strategy (1,2) for preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). All students at Duke University, a private research university in Durham, North Carolina, signed the Duke Compact (3), agreeing to observe mandatory masking, social distancing, and participation in entry and surveillance testing. The university implemented a five-to-one pooled testing program for SARS-CoV-2 using a quantitative, in-house, laboratory-developed, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test (4,5). Pooling of specimens to enable large-scale testing while minimizing use of reagents was pioneered during the human immunodeficiency virus pandemic (6). A similar methodology was adapted for Duke University's asymptomatic testing program. The baseline SARS-CoV-2 testing plan was to distribute tests geospatially and temporally across on- and off-campus student populations. By September 20, 2020, asymptomatic testing was scaled up to testing targets, which include testing for residential undergraduates twice weekly, off-campus undergraduates one to two times per week, and graduate students approximately once weekly. In addition, in response to newly identified positive test results, testing was focused in locations or within cohorts where data suggested an increased risk for transmission. Scale-up over 4 weeks entailed redeploying staff members to prepare 15 campus testing sites for specimen collection, developing information management tools, and repurposing laboratory automation to establish an asymptomatic surveillance system. During August 2-October 11, 68,913 specimens from 10,265 graduate and undergraduate students were tested. Eighty-four specimens were positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 51% were among persons with no symptoms. Testing as a result of contact tracing identified 27.4% of infections. A combination of risk-reduction strategies and frequent surveillance testing likely contributed to a prolonged period of low transmission on campus. These findings highlight the importance of combined testing and contact tracing strategies beyond symptomatic testing, in association with other preventive measures. Pooled testing balances resource availability with supply-chain disruptions, high throughput with high sensitivity, and rapid turnaround with an acceptable workload.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Diseases/epidemiology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , North Carolina/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Program Development , SARS-CoV-2 , Universities , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL