Journal of medical virology
-
The year 2020 started with the emergence of novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19 infection. Soon after the first evidence was reported in Wuhan, China, the World Health Organization declared global public health emergency and imminent need to understand the pathogenicity of the virus was required in limited time. Once the genome sequence of the virus was delineated, scientists across the world started working on the development of vaccines. ⋯ There are several vaccine candidates at preclinical and clinical stages; however, only 42 vaccines are under clinical trials. Therefore, more industry collaborations and financial supports to COVID-19 studies are needed for mass-scale vaccine development. To develop effective vaccine platforms against SARS-CoV-2, the genetic resemblance with other coronaviruses are being evaluated which may further promote fast-track trials on previously developed SARS-CoV vaccines.
-
Observational Study
Evaluation of seven commercial RT-PCR kits for COVID-19 testing in pooled clinical specimens.
There are more than 350 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) testing kits commercially available but these kits have not been evaluated for pooled sample testing. Thus, this study was planned to compare and evaluate seven commercially available kits for pooled samples testing. Diagnostic accuracy of (1) TRUPCR SARS-CoV-2 Kit (Black Bio), (2) TaqPath RT-PCR COVID-19 Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific), (3) Allplex 2019-nCOV Assay (Seegene), (4) Patho detect COVID-19 PCR kit (My Lab), (5) LabGun COVID-19 RT-PCR Kit (Lab Genomics, Korea), (6) Fosun COVID-19 RT-PCR detection kit (Fosun Ltd.), (7) Real-time Fluorescent RT-PCR kit for SARS CoV-2 (BGI) was evaluated on precharacterised 40 positive and 10 negative COVID-19 sample pools. ⋯ However, the Fosun kit, LabGun Kit, and Patho detect kit could detect only 90%, 85%, and 75% of weakly positive samples, respectively. We conclude that all seven commercially available RT-PCR kits included in this study can be used for routine molecular diagnosis of COVID-19. However, regarding performing pooled sample testing, it might be advisable to use those kits that performed best regarding positive identification in samples' pool, that is TRUPCR SARS-CoV-2 Kit, TaqPath RT-PCR COVID-19 Kit, Allplex 2019-nCOV Assay, and BGI Real-time RT-PCR kit for detecting SARS CoV-2.
-
There are very few studies in search of an alternate and convenient diagnostic tool which can substitute nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. In the study we analyzed, the comparison and agreement between the feasibility of using the saliva in comparison to NPS for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. A total number of 74 patients were enrolled for this study. ⋯ Bland-Altman analysis produced relatively smaller bias and high agreement between these two clinical specimens. Phylogenetic analysis with the RdRp and S gene confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva samples. Saliva represented a promising tool in COVID-19 diagnosis and the collection method would reduce the exposure risk of frontline health workers which is one of the major concerns in primary healthcare settings.
-
Diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) cases is based on the count of real-time reverse transcription-plymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive people. Viral load by real-time RT-PCR has been suggested as a biomarker of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the association of viral load and severity of the disease is not yet resolved. ⋯ Cases between 10 and 49 years old mostly showed low and moderate viral load during the first 2 days postinfection (range, 0.03 to 17.24; -1.50 to 1.24). Patients over 60 years old have high viral load up to the second week after the onset of symptoms (range, 25.32-155.42; 1.40-2.19), indicating the longer presence of the virus in them. These findings suggest the viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs would help to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 infection in mild coronavirus disease 2019 cases.
-
While vaccination remains the cornerstone of controlling vaccine-preventive diseases (VPD), little is known about the effect of social distancing on incidence of VPDs. We investigated the impact of social distancing practiced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the incidence of selected VPDs in South Korea. ⋯ The largest decline of total VPDs was in April (65%) and in May (67%), during the intensified social distancing measures. In the setting of sustained vaccination coverage, social distancing may provide additional public health benefit in controlling the VPDs.