Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
2.
Acta Otorrinolaringologica (English Edition) ; 2022.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1720692
5.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol ; 11: 653616, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1315950

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a major threat to public health. Rapid molecular testing for convenient and timely diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections represents a challenge that could help to control the current pandemic and prevent future outbreaks. We aimed to develop and validate a multiplex and colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay using lyophilized LAMP reagents for sensitive and rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2. LAMP primers were designed for a set of gene targets identified by a genome-wide comparison of viruses. Primer sets that showed optimal features were combined into a multiplex RT-LAMP assay. Analytical validation included assessment of the limit of detection (LoD), intra- and inter-assay precision, and cross-reaction with other respiratory pathogens. Clinical performance compared to that of real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) was assessed using 278 clinical RNA samples isolated from swabs collected from individuals tested for COVID-19. The RT-LAMP assay targeting the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), membrane (M), and ORF1ab genes achieved a comparable LoD (0.65 PFU/mL, CT=34.12) to RT-qPCR and was 10-fold more sensitive than RT-qPCR at detecting viral RNA in clinical samples. Cross-reactivity to other respiratory pathogens was not observed. The multiplex RT-LAMP assay demonstrated a strong robustness and acceptable intra- and inter-assay precision (mean coefficient of variation, 4.75% and 8.30%). Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity values were 100.0% (95% CI: 97.4-100.0%) and 98.6% (95% CI: 94.9-99.8%), respectively, showing high consistency (Cohen's kappa, 0.986; 95% CI: 0.966-1.000; p<0.0001) compared to RT-qPCR. The novel one-step multiplex RT-LAMP assay is storable at room temperature and showed similar diagnostic accuracy to conventional RT-qPCR, while being faster (<45 min), simpler, and cheaper. The new assay could allow reliable and early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections in primary health care. It may aid large-scale testing in resource-limited settings, especially if it is integrated into a point-of-care diagnostic device.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Colorimetry , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reverse Transcription , Sensitivity and Specificity
6.
J Med Virol ; 93(10): 5961-5968, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286127

ABSTRACT

Peru has become one of the countries with the highest mortality rates from the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). To investigate early transmission events and the genomic diversity of SARS-CoV-2 isolates circulating in Peru in the early COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed 3472 viral genomes, of which 149 were from Peru. Phylogenomic analysis revealed multiple and independent introductions of the virus likely from Europe and Asia and a high diversity of genetic lineages circulating in Peru. In addition, we found evidence for community-driven transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as suggested by clusters of related viruses found in patients living in different regions of Peru.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/virology , Genetic Variation , Genome, Viral/genetics , Humans , Peru/epidemiology , Phylogeny , Phylogeography , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/classification
9.
Rev. peru. med. exp. salud publica ; 37(2):203-209, 2020.
Article in Spanish | LILACS (Americas), Grey literature | ID: grc-741873

ABSTRACT

RESUMEN Objetivos: Determinar el rendimiento diagnóstico adicional de una prueba serológica rápida que detecta anticuerpos IgM e IgG contra SARS-CoV-2 en relación a la reacción en cadena de polimerasa reversa en tiempo real (RT-PCR). Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal incluyendo pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 en tres hospitales, trabajadores de salud expuestos a la infección y pacientes ambulatorios que cumplían criterios de caso sospechoso, a quienes se les realizó la prueba molecular (RT-PCR) y la prueba serológica rápida. Se evaluó el rendimiento diagnóstico adicional de las prueba serológica rápida en relación a la molecular. Asimismo, se realizó la estimación de sensibilidad y especificidad de dichas pruebas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 144 personas. La prueba serológica rápida obtuvo un 19,4% de resultados positivos en comparación con un 11,1% en la prueba molecular (p=0,03). La prueba serológica rápida detectó 21 casos que habían resultado negativos por el RT-PCR inicial y el rendimiento diagnóstico adicional fue de 56,8% en comparación al RT-PCR. El rendimiento diagnóstico adicional fue 50,0% durante la primera semana, 70,0% durante la segunda y 50,0% durante la tercera semana de inicio de síntomas. La sensibilidad de la prueba serológica rápida fue de 43,8% y la especificidad del 98,9%. Conclusiones: La prueba serológica rápida logró detectar un mayor número de casos respecto a la molecular, sobre todo a partir de la segunda semana de inicio de síntomas. Además, presentó una alta especificidad. Los resultados mostrarían su utilidad como prueba complementaria a la prueba molecular, especialmente durante la segunda y tercera semana de enfermedad. ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the additional diagnostic performance of a rapid serological test for detection of IgM and IgG antibodies compared to the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test;for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out including patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 3 hospitals, health workers exposed to the infection and outpatients who met suspicious case criteria, all of which underwent the molecular test (RT-PCR) and the rapid serological test. The additional diagnostic performance of rapid serological test was evaluated in comparison to molecular tests. Likewise, an approximation was made to the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid serological test. Results: 144 people were included. With the rapid test, 19.4% of positive results were obtained compared to 11.1% in the molecular test (p = 0.03). The rapid serological test detected 21 cases that had been negative by the initial (RT-PCR), providing an additional diagnostic performance of 56.8% compared to the RT-PCR. The additional diagnostic performance was 50.0% during the first week, 70.0% during the second week and 50.0% during the third week of symptom onset. The sensitivity of the rapid serological test was 43.8% and the specificity of 98.9%. Conclusions: The rapid serological test was able to detect a greater number of cases than those detected by the molecular test especially after the second week of onset of symptoms. It also showed high specificity. It is therefore useful as a complementary test to RT-PCR, especially during the second and third week of illness.

10.
Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica ; 37(2): 203-209, 2020.
Article in Spanish, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-740620

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the additional diagnostic performance of a rapid serological test for detection of IgM and IgG antibodies compared to the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test; for detection of SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out including patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 3 hospitals, health workers exposed to the infection and outpatients who met suspicious case criteria, all of which underwent the molecular test (RT-PCR) and the rapid serological test. The additional diagnostic performance of rapid serological test was evaluated in comparison to molecular tests. Likewise, an approximation was made to the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid serological test. RESULTS: 144 people were included. With the rapid test, 19.4% of positive results were obtained compared to 11.1% in the molecular test (p = 0.03). The rapid serological test detected 21 cases that had been negative by the initial (RT-PCR), providing an additional diagnostic performance of 56.8% compared to the RT-PCR. The additional diagnostic performance was 50.0% during the first week, 70.0% during the second week and 50.0% during the third week of symptom onset. The sensitivity of the rapid serological test was 43.8% and the specificity of 98.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid serological test was able to detect a greater number of cases than those detected by the molecular test especially after the second week of onset of symptoms. It also showed high specificity. It is therefore useful as a complementary test to RT-PCR, especially during the second and third week of illness.


OBJETIVOS: Determinar el rendimiento diagnóstico adicional de una prueba serológica rápida que detecta anticuerpos IgM e IgG contra SARS-CoV-2 en relación a la reacción en cadena de polimerasa reversa en tiempo real (RT-PCR). MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio transversal incluyendo pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 en tres hospitales, trabajadores de salud expuestos a la infección y pacientes ambulatorios que cumplían criterios de caso sospechoso, a quienes se les realizó la prueba molecular (RT-PCR) y la prueba serológica rápida. Se evaluó el rendimiento diagnóstico adicional de las prueba serológica rápida en relación a la molecular. Asimismo, se realizó la estimación de sensibilidad y especificidad de dichas pruebas. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 144 personas. La prueba serológica rápida obtuvo un 19,4% de resultados positivos en comparación con un 11,1% en la prueba molecular (p=0,03). La prueba serológica rápida detectó 21 casos que habían resultado negativos por el RT-PCR inicial y el rendimiento diagnóstico adicional fue de 56,8% en comparación al RT-PCR. El rendimiento diagnóstico adicional fue 50,0% durante la primera semana, 70,0% durante la segunda y 50,0% durante la tercera semana de inicio de síntomas. La sensibilidad de la prueba serológica rápida fue de 43,8% y la especificidad del 98,9%. CONCLUSIONES: La prueba serológica rápida logró detectar un mayor número de casos respecto a la molecular, sobre todo a partir de la segunda semana de inicio de síntomas. Además, presentó una alta especificidad. Los resultados mostrarían su utilidad como prueba complementaria a la prueba molecular, especialmente durante la segunda y tercera semana de enfermedad.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adult , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL