Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients during the BA.5 omicron wave in Tehran, Iran: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Omicron (B.1.1.529) is the fifth variant of concern of SARS-CoV-2, which has several subvariants. Clinical features of BA.1 and BA.2 infections have been described in the literature, but we have limited information about the clinical profile of BA.5, which caused the seventh wave in Iran. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted on the BA.5 confirmed patients referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran, from 11th to 31st August 2022. The patients were divided into the two groups of outpatients and hospitalized patients, and their clinical, radiological, and laboratory data and outcomes were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: We included 193 patients with confirmed BA.5 infection, of whom 48 patients (24·8%) were hospitalized. The mean age of the patients was 45·3 ± 16·5 years, and 113 patients (58·5%) were female. The mean number of days patients had symptoms was 6·8 ± 2·4 days. The most common symptoms were weakness (69·9%), sore throat (67·4%), myalgia (66·3%), hoarseness (63·7%), headache (55·4%), fatigue (54·9%), and dry cough (50·3%). Fever and dyspnea were significantly more observed in the hospitalized patients (p < 0·0001). The COVID-19 vaccination rate was significantly lower in hospitalized patients than in outpatients (35/48-72·9% vs. 140/145 - 96·6%, p < 0·0001). The most common underlying diseases were hypertension (16·1%), diabetes mellitus (9·8%), and cardiovascular diseases (9·8%), all of which were significantly more common in hospitalized patients. Lung opacities were observed in 81·2% of hospitalized patients. By the end of our study, 1·5% of patients died despite receiving critical care services. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that BA.5 symptoms are more non-respiratory and usually improve within 7 days. Although the proportion of hospitalized patients is still significant, very few patients require intensive care. COVID-19 vaccination is effective in reducing the hospitalization rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study is not a clinical trial.

The role of saliva PCR assay in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of a self-collection sampling method with less discomfort would be of great benefit in reducing the risk of medical provider's contamination and patient's acceptance. The aim of the present study was to investigate saliva samples' diagnostic performance for the COVID-19 RT-PCR test compared to pharyngeal swabs. METHODOLOGY: From individuals referred to a medical center with presentations compatible with COVID-19 who were eligible for molecular diagnostic tests, 80 cases were selected. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (placed into the same transport tube) along with self-collected saliva sample were taken from each participant for COVID-19 RT-PCR assay. The results of pharyngeal swabs and saliva sample were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-two (78%) infected cases were detected, of whom 31 (39%) cases tested positive for both pharyngeal swab and saliva samples. 24 (30%) and 7 (9%) cases tested positive only for pharyngeal or saliva samples, respectively. The overall percentage of agreement between pharyngeal swab and saliva sample was 61%, with a kappa value of 0.24 (p-value = 0.019, 95% CI: 0.04-0.44), showing a fair level of agreement. The diagnostic sensitivity of pharyngeal swabs was 88.71% (95% CI: 78.11-95.34), and the diagnostic sensitivity of saliva samples was 61.29% (95% CI: 48.07-73.40). Compared to pharyngeal swabs (oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs in the same collection tube), an important observation was that seven more positive cases were detected among saliva samples. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study indicated that self-collected saliva samples cannot replace pharyngeal swabs. Still, saliva samples significantly increased the case detection rate and can be used along with pharyngeal swabs.

Comparison of Patient-collected and Lab Technician-collected Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabs for Detection of COVID-19 by RT-PCR.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: A simple approach to prevent close contact in healthcare settings during the COVID-19 outbreak is to train patients to collect their own nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and deliver them to medical laboratories to have them processed. The aim of our study was to compare lab technician- with patient- collected oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples for detection of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) using rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). METHODS: Fifty adult patients with flu-like symptoms and radiologic findings compatible with atypical pneumonia who were admitted to the infectious diseases ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran, with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 from February 28 to April 27 of 2020 were randomly selected and entered in our study. Two sets of naso- and oropharyngeal swabs were collected, one set by a lab technician and the other by the patients, and the COVID-19 rRT-PCR test was performed. RESULTS: Of 50 selected cases, in seven patients all collected naso- and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive, and in 22 patients all samples tested negative for COVID-19 in rRT-PCR. Discrepancies between rRT-PCR results of lab technician- and patient-collected swabs were observed in 12 nasopharyngeal and 13 oropharyngeal specimens. Positive lab technician-collected and negative patient-collected samples were observed in 10 and 5 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. Negative lab technician-collected and positive patient-collected samples were observed in two and seven nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. The overall percentage of agreement among both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs taken by a lab technician and patients was 76% with a kappa value of 0.49 (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, lab technician-collected naso- and oropharyngeal swabs cannot be replaced by patient-collected ones with regard to COVID-19 rRT-PCR.