RESUMO
BackgroundViral culture is currently the most accurate method to demonstrate viability and infectivity of Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-2 CoV). Routine clinical diagnosis, however, is mostly performed by PCR - based assays that do not discriminate between infectious and non-virus. Herein, we aimed to determine the correlation between positive viral cultures and either PCR positivity, the Cycle Threshold (Ct) or the number of viral copies. MethodsA systematic electronic literature search was performed and studies that reported both viral SARS-CoV-2 culture and PCR-based assays were included. A separate search for samples from blood, urine, stool, breast milk and tears were performed. To convert Ct values reported in the reviewed studies were to viral genomic copies, calibration experiments with four different reaction performed, using quantified RNA molecules. ResultsA total 540 articles were reviewed, and 38 studies were included in this review. Out of 276 positive-culture of non-severe patients, 272 (98.55%) were negative ten days after symptoms onset, while PCR assays remained positive for up to 67 days. In severely ill or immunocompromised patients positive-culture was obtained up to 32 days and out of 168 cultures, 31 (18.45%) stayed positive after day 10. In non-severe patients, in Ct value greater than 30 only 10.8% were still culture-positive while in Ct >35 it was nearly universally negative. The minimal calculated number of viral genome copies in culture-positive sample was 2.5 x 103 copies / mL. These findings were similar in immunocompromised patients. Recovering positive culture from non-respiratory samples was sporadically obtained in stool or urine samples. Conversion of Ct values to viral genome copies showed variability between different PCR assays and highlighted the need to standardize reports to correctly compare results obtained in different laboratories. ConclusionDuring the pandemic phase, non-severe COVID-19 patients who are recovering and are not immuno-suppressed, can be regarded as non-infectious, within 10 days from symptom onset, or with Ct value greater than 35 (or a calculated viral load lower than 1.2x103 copies / mL). These findings have important implications for recovering patients and asymptomatic patients, with respect to isolation criteria. The conversion of Cq values to viral genome copies described herein may be useful in future work, enabling a more standardized comparison between results reported in different studies from different laboratories.
RESUMO
ImportanceWhile the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine effectivness was demonstrated in general population, the question of effectiveness given confirmed exposure has yet been answered, though it has policy implications, as the need for self-quarantine when exposed and protective measures for vaccinated in high-risk areas. ObjectiveAssessing the BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection given high-risk exposure, through analysis of household members of confirmed cases. DesignRetrospective cohort study. Data of household members of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases between 20/12/2020 and 17/03/2021 were collected. SettingNationally centralized database of Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS), the second largest Healthcare Maintenance Organization in Israel. Participants2.5 million MHS members were considered, of which we included only households with two adult members, given possible lower transmission and susceptibility among children. Households with no prior confirmed infections and a confirmed index case during the study period were included. ExposureParticipants were classified into three vaccination groups in time of the index case (the confirmed exposure)-Unvaccinated; Fully Vaccinated(7 or more days post second dose) and a reference control group of Recently Vaccinated Once(0-7 days from the first dose, presumably still unprotected). Main Outcomes and MeasuresAssessing the probability of an additional SARS-CoV-2 infection in the household occurring within 10 days of an index case, calculated separately for the three vaccination groups. Main outcome was vaccine effectiveness given confirmed exposure. High testing rates among household members enabled us to estimate with a high degree of confidence effectiveness against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection as well. ResultsA total of 173,569 households were included, out of which 6,351 households had an index infection (mean [SD] age, 58.9 [13.5] years; 50% were women). Vaccine effectiveness of Fully Vaccinated compared to Unvaccinated participants was 80.0% [95% CI, 73.0-85.1] and 82.0% [95% CI, 75.5-86.7] compared to those Recently Vaccinated Once. Conclusion and RelevanceThe BNT162b2 vaccine is effective in a high-risk, real life, exposure scenario, but the protection rates afforded in these settings are lower than those previously described. Household members of COVID-19 patients and any individual with a confirmed exposure to COVID-19 are still at a considerable risk of being infected even if fully vaccinated.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In recent years, multiple outbreaks of measles associated with vaccine hesitancy occurred in high-income countries, where measles incidence had previously been low. Most safety data about the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine are derived from studies conducted among children, whereas evidence regarding the safety profile of the vaccine in adults is scarce. METHODS: In 2017, during an outbreak of measles in Europe, Israeli travellers to high-risk locations who were incompletely vaccinated, were urged to complete the two MMR vaccination schedule before their travel. In this prospective cohort study, we analysed adverse events (AEs) of MMR and MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella and varicella) vaccines among these travellers. All participants were followed up using structured questionnaires 2-4 weeks after vaccination. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eighty-five adult travellers whose median age was 49.2 years were vaccinated and followed up. Any AEs were reported by 25.2% of all participants; 11.6% reported local AEs, and 18.6% reported systemic AEs, none of which were severe. In general, AEs were much more common among female travellers (19.4% of males vs 30.1% of females (P < 0.001)). Local AEs, overall systemic AEs, headache and arthralgia were much more common among females, whereas rates of general malaise and fever were not statistically different between genders. We did not observe any significant differences in the rates of total, local or systemic AEs between the MMR and MMRV vaccines. Higher rates of systemic AEs were observed among participants who were younger and probably immunized once with MMR compared to older vaccines immunized once to measles only and to those who were never immunized. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated low rates of systemic AEs and no serious AEs following either MMR or MMRV administration. More AEs were reported among females, and rates of AEs were similar after either MMR or MMRV.
