Respiratory virus detection among healthcare professionals in Brazil: work-related contact and episode recurrence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in the circulation of respiratory viruses have been observed after measures to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were implemented. In this sense, we aimed to understand the circulation of the respiratory virus and its impact in a controlled healthy population of healthcare professional (HCP) volunteers in phase III of the clinical trial of the ChadOx nCoV1 conducted in São Paulo, Brazil. STUDY DESIGN: This was a nested observational cohort study within a clinical trial. METHODS: We performed RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus A and B (IVA and IVB), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human rhinovirus (HRV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), human coronaviruses (hCoVs: HKU-1, NL63, OC43, and 229-E), parainfluenza virus (PiV) I-IV, and q-PCR for adenovirus in nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples obtained from HCP enrolled in the clinical trial to assess respiratory viruses infection among vaccinated and non-vaccinated. RESULTS: From July 2020 to January 2022, 876 samples were included from 737 volunteers (median age: 33 years, 62.9% female). New episodes were registered for 119 individuals. We observed an overall positivity of 37.7% for SARS-CoV-2 and 16.4% for other respiratory viruses; HRV was the second most detected virus (8%), followed by RSV (2.4%). Fully vaccinated individuals accounted for 53.3% of collected samples, and 52.9% presented at least one respiratory virus infection, with SARS-CoV-2 being the most predominant etiologic agent (62.3%). Influenza and hMPV were not detected among the tested samples. Among the subjects that presented more than one episode, SARS-CoV-2 and HRV infections were related to direct contact with patients (P < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Data show high infection rates among HCPs even under mask policies and contact precautions, highlighting the need for improvement in infection control measures in this population regardless of the vaccination program.

Rhinovirus detection using different PCR-based strategies

Human rhinoviruses (HRVs) are the major cause of the common cold. HRVs were recently reclassified into the Enterovirus genus (HEV) in the Picornaviridae family. HRVs and other members of the HEV genus share many common features, including sense RNA genomes and partial nucleotide sequence identity. The aim of this study was to evaluate different HRV detection strategies. Samples from adults with acute respiratory infection (n = 291) who were treated in Sao Paulo Hospital (2001-2003) were tested using three assays. The first assay detected picornaviruses by RT-PCR and hybridization, the second detected rhinoviruses using RT-PCR/sequencing, and the third differentiated HRV from HEV using duplex semi-nested-RT-PCR. Analysis of the results obtained from the first two strategies revealed 83% concordance. Discordant samples were then evaluated by the third protocol, and 82% were negative. The picornavirus detection protocol was more sensitive but less specific than the rhinovirus detection protocols. The semi-nested protocol utilized in the present study was less sensitive and was not useful in differentiating HRV from HEV. Sequencing assays examining different genes would address the best strategy of confirming rhinovirus and enterovirus infections.

Rhinovirus detection using different PCR-based strategies.

Human rhinoviruses (HRVs) are the major cause of the common cold. HRVs were recently reclassified into the Enterovirus genus (HEV) in the Picornaviridae family. HRVs and other members of the HEV genus share many common features, including sense RNA genomes and partial nucleotide sequence identity. The aim of this study was to evaluate different HRV detection strategies. Samples from adults with acute respiratory infection (n = 291) who were treated in Sao Paulo Hospital (2001-2003) were tested using three assays. The first assay detected picornaviruses by RT-PCR and hybridization, the second detected rhinoviruses using RT-PCR/sequencing, and the third differentiated HRV from HEV using duplex semi-nested-RT-PCR. Analysis of the results obtained from the first two strategies revealed 83% concordance. Discordant samples were then evaluated by the third protocol, and 82% were negative. The picornavirus detection protocol was more sensitive but less specific than the rhinovirus detection protocols. The semi-nested protocol utilized in the present study was less sensitive and was not useful in differentiating HRV from HEV. Sequencing assays examining different genes would address the best strategy of confirming rhinovirus and enterovirus infections.

Evaluation of a rapid test (QuickVue) compared with the shell vial assay for detection of influenza virus clearance after antiviral treatment.

QuickVue influenza rapid diagnostic test (Quidel Corp., San Diego, CA, USA) was compared with the classical shell vial assay for evaluation of influenza virus clearance in patients treated with antiviral drugs. The shell vial assay was carried out on nasopharyngeal samples obtained from volunteers for a neuraminidase-inhibitor clinical trial protocol with 24 h or less from the onset of symptoms of influenza before the use of antiviral (day 1). Follow-up included samples collected after 24 and 72 h of therapy (day 2 and 4). The rapid test was retrospectively carried out in frozen samples. Test results on 99 samples from 33 adults were compared and the shell vial assay was considered the gold standard. The overall rate of detection for the shell vial assay was 39.4% and for QuickVue was 35.5%, with a concordance of 79.8%. The sensitivity obtained for QuickVue was 74.4% and the specificity was 82.7%. Comparison of test results day by day in the follow-up resulted: day 1, higher sensitivity of QuickVue test (85.5%, 24/29); day 2, agreement on positive and negative results between QuickVue and shell vial was 60.6% (20/33); day 4, all test results in samples collected after 72 h of therapy were negative. The QuickVue test showed good sensitivity for the diagnosis of influenza-like illnesses. This rapid test kit can be an alternative tool for interventions in disease management.