Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in anal from patients who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019

[Long covid and disability]

Long covid is a health problem that will entail a high hidden cost attributable to the pandemic years after it because it affects the work capacity of many workers. Given the millions of covid-19 cases worldwide and current research showing that one in 7covid-19 patients remain symptomatic at 12 weeks, the number of long covid patients is likely to be substantial. Long covid is characterized by heterogeneous sequelae that often affect multiple systems, organs with an impact on the functioning and capacity of the worker. Workers with long covid symptoms can return to their occupation but this involves a complex individualized approach to the impact of symptoms on work, adjustments and modifications to the workplace. Patients with long covid typically report prolonged multisystem involvement and signicant disability. The psychological cost to the worker must also be addressed. A survey by the Community of Madrid (CCOO, SATSE, CSIF, AMYTS) in 2022 reveals that 24.5% of those affected by long covid were sick for more than 12 months; 30% of those affected by persistent covid need and adaption to their workplace. In Spain, more than 10million people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been reported since the pandemic began, so it is estimated that there could be one million people with persistent covid. In 2021 alone there were more than 2.6 million sick leave due to covid-19 in Spain, the average duration of which was 10 days. One hundred million people around the world suffer from persistent covid, but few countries officially count them, nor do they help those affected with employment. In advanced countries, like the United States, long covid is treated as a disability,and the number of people with disabilities working or looking for work increased by 1.36 million, an increase of 23%, between January 2021 and January 2022. In the United Kingdom, some 200,000 people are not working or are not looking for work due to long-term health problems attributable to long covid, since the pandemic began.

Disorders of gut-brain interaction in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the devastating pandemic which has caused more than 5 million deaths across the world until today. Apart from causing acute respiratory illness and multiorgan dysfunction, there can be long-term multiorgan sequalae after recovery, which is termed 'long COVID-19' or 'post-acute COVID-19 syndrome'. Little is known about long-term gastrointestinal (GI) consequences, occurrence of post-infection functional gastrointestinal disorders and impact the virus may have on overall intestinal health. In this review, we put forth the various mechanisms which may lead to this entity and possible ways to diagnose and manage this disorder. Hence, making physicians aware of this spectrum of disease is of utmost importance in the present pandemic and this review will help clinicians understand and suspect the occurrence of functional GI disease post recovery from COVID-19 and manage it accordingly, avoiding unnecessary misconceptions and delay in treatment.

Residual persistence of cytotoxicity lymphocytes and regulatory T cells in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 over a 1-year recovery process

Aim

To clarify the immune cellular changes in critically ill patients recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).

Methods

The immune response of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with severe COVID‐19 in different stages of recovery (3, 6, and 12 months from hospitalization) was evaluated by single‐cell mass cytometry. Immunological changes in patients were compared with those in age‐matched healthy donors.

Results

Three patients with severe COVID‐19 were compared with four healthy donors. In the patients, there was an increase in the cell density of CD4‐ and CD8‐positive T lymphocytes, and B cells, over the course of the recovery period. CD4‐ and CD8‐positive T lymphocytes expressing T‐bet and granzyme B (Gzm B) in patients were abundant during all recovery periods. The level of regulatory T cells remained high throughout the year. The levels of natural killer (NK) cells in patients were higher than in those in the healthy donors, and the frequency of CD16⁺ NK cells expressing Gzm B increased throughout the year.

Conclusion

Patients recovering from severe COVID‐19 showed persistence of cytotoxic lymphocytes, NK cells, and regulatory T cells throughout the posthospitalization year of recovery.

COVID-19 induces gastrointestinal symptoms and affects patients' prognosis

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection caused the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Gastrointestinal (GI) involvement is common among patients with COVID-19, and GI symptoms can appear earlier than respiratory symptoms. Except for direct infectious effects, patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at risk of complications requiring gastroenterological management. Diarrhea is the most common GI symptom in patients with COVID-19 and occurs in up to half of them. Other GI symptoms, such as anorexia, discomfort, nausea, abdominal pain, loss of taste sensation, and vomiting, have been reported. GI symptoms are associated with a poor prognosis. Fecal viral excretion may have clinical significance because of the possible fecal-oral transmission of infection. In the present narrative review article, six different aspects of studies published to date are summarized as follows: GI manifestations of COVID-19, the roles of fecal-oral transmission, poor prognosis of GI symptoms; abnormal abdominal imaging findings, COVID-19 in patients with irritable bowel disease, and prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the digestive endoscopy room. Timely understanding of the association between COVID-19 and the digestive system and effective preventive measures are critical to improve this disease and help clinicians take appropriate measures to mitigate further transmission.

Persistent Overactive Cytotoxic Immune Response in a Spanish Cohort of Individuals With Long-COVID: Identification of Diagnostic Biomarkers

Long-COVID is a new emerging syndrome worldwide that is characterized by the persistence of unresolved signs and symptoms of COVID-19 more than 4 weeks after the infection and even after more than 12 weeks. The underlying mechanisms for Long-COVID are still undefined, but a sustained inflammatory response caused by the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in organ and tissue sanctuaries or resemblance with an autoimmune disease are within the most considered hypotheses. In this study, we analyzed the usefulness of several demographic, clinical, and immunological parameters as diagnostic biomarkers of Long-COVID in one cohort of Spanish individuals who presented signs and symptoms of this syndrome after 49 weeks post-infection, in comparison with individuals who recovered completely in the first 12 weeks after the infection. We determined that individuals with Long-COVID showed significantly increased levels of functional memory cells with high antiviral cytotoxic activity such as CD8+ TEMRA cells, CD8±TCRγδ+ cells, and NK cells with CD56+CD57+NKG2C+ phenotype. The persistence of these long-lasting cytotoxic populations was supported by enhanced levels of CD4+ Tregs and the expression of the exhaustion marker PD-1 on the surface of CD3+ T lymphocytes. With the use of these immune parameters and significant clinical features such as lethargy, pleuritic chest pain, and dermatological injuries, as well as demographic factors such as female gender and O+ blood type, a Random Forest algorithm predicted the assignment of the participants in the Long-COVID group with 100% accuracy. The definition of the most accurate diagnostic biomarkers could be helpful to detect the development of Long-COVID and to improve the clinical management of these patients.

Development of a rapid and sensitive quantum dot nanobead-based double-antigen sandwich lateral flow immunoassay and its clinical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies

Owing to the over-increasing demands in resisting and managing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, development of rapid, highly sensitive, accurate, and versatile tools for monitoring total antibody concentrations at the population level has been evolved as an urgent challenge on measuring the fatality rate, tracking the changes in incidence and prevalence, comprehending medical sequelae after recovery, as well as characterizing seroprevalence and vaccine coverage. To this end, herein we prepared highly luminescent quantum dot nanobeads (QBs) by embedding numerous quantum dots into polymer matrix, and then applied it as a signal-amplification label in lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). After covalently linkage with the expressed recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (RSSP), the synthesized QBs were used to determine the total antibody levels in sera by virtue of a double-antigen sandwich immunoassay. Under the developed condition, the QB-LFIA can allow the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies within 15 min with about one order of magnitude improvement in analytical sensitivity compared to conventional gold nanoparticle-based LFIA. In addition, the developed QB-LFIA performed well in clinical study in dynamic monitoring of serum antibody levels in the whole course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In conclusion, we successfully developed a promising fluorescent immunological sensing tool for characterizing the host immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and confirming the acquired immunity to COVID-19 by evaluating the SRAS-CoV-2 total antibody level in the crowd.

Detection of three pandemic causing coronaviruses from non-respiratory samples: systematic review and meta-analysis

SARS-CoV-2 has posed an unprecedented challenge to the world. Pandemics have been caused previously by viruses of this family like Middle East Respiratory Corona Virus (MERS CoV), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus (SARS CoV). Although these viruses are primarily respiratory viruses, but they have been isolated from non-respiratory samples as well. Presently, the detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from different clinical specimens using Real Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerized Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) after onset of symptoms is not yet well established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to establish the profile of detecting SARS-CoV-2, MERS CoV, SARS CoV from different types of clinical specimens other than the respiratory using a standard diagnostic test (qRT-PCR). A total of 3429 non-respiratory specimens were recorded: SARS CoV (total sample-802), MERS CoV (total sample-155), SARS CoV-2 (total sample-2347). Out of all the samples studied high positive rate was seen for saliva with 96.7% (14/14; 95% CI 87.6-100.0%) for SARS CoV and 57.5% (58/250; 95% CI - 1.2 to 116.2%) for SARS CoV-2, while low detection rate in urine samples for SARS CoV-2 with 2.2% (8/318; 95% CI 0.6-3.7%) and 9.6% (12/61; 95% CI - 0.9 to 20.1%) for SARS CoV but there was relatively higher positivity in urine samples for MERS CoV with detection rate of 32.4% (2/38; 95% CI - 37.3 to 102.1%). In Stool sample positivity was 54.9% (396/779; 95% CI 41.0-68.8%), 45.2% (180/430; 95% CI 28.1-62.3%) and 34.7% (4/38; 95% CI - 29.5 to 98.9%) for SARS CoV-2, MERS CoV, and SARS CoV, respectively. In blood sample the positivity was 33.3% (7/21; 95% CI 13.2-53.5%), 23.7% (42/277; 95% CI 10.5-36.9%) and 2.5% (2/81; 95% CI 0.00-5.8%) for MERS CoV, SARS CoV-2 and SARS CoV respectively. SARS-CoV-2 along with previous two pandemic causing viruses from this family, were highly detected stool and saliva. A low positive rate was recorded in blood samples. Viruses were also detected in fluids along with unusual samples like semen and vaginal secretions thus highlighting unique pathogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2.

Tools and Techniques for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/COVID-19 Detection

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to millions of confirmed cases and deaths worldwide. Efficient diagnostic tools are in high demand, as rapid and large-scale testing plays a pivotal role in patient management and decelerating disease spread. This paper reviews current technologies used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in clinical laboratories as well as advances made for molecular, antigen-based, and immunological point-of-care testing, including recent developments in sensor and biosensor devices. The importance of the timing and type of specimen collection is discussed, along with factors such as disease prevalence, setting, and methods. Details of the mechanisms of action of the various methodologies are presented, along with their application span and known performance characteristics. Diagnostic imaging techniques and biomarkers are also covered, with an emphasis on their use for assessing COVID-19 or monitoring disease severity or complications. While the SARS-CoV-2 literature is rapidly evolving, this review highlights topics of interest that have occurred during the pandemic and the lessons learned throughout. Exploring a broad armamentarium of techniques for detecting SARS-CoV-2 will ensure continued diagnostic support for clinicians, public health, and infection prevention and control for this pandemic and provide advice for future pandemic preparedness.

Different Laboratory Diagnosis Methods of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

: The virus causing COVID-19 disease is known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease spread rapidly and was transmitted like a contagious disease throughout China, and then it gradually spread in other parts of the world. Accordingly, the rapid and accurate detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus plays an essential role in selecting timely treatments, saving lives, and preventing the spread of the disease. This study summarizes the methods used to identify coronavirus nucleic acid. The effectiveness of coronavirus nucleic acid detection kits by different samples and the performance of other diagnostic techniques are also addressed in this study. We searched Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases as well as the references of all relevant articles in English published during 2019 - 2020 using keywords related to COVID-19, detection kits, and respiratory failure and proceedings from relevant conferences and congresses. The authors collected the relevant reports, and each of the authors independently reviewed the data published in different studies. The results of previous studies indicated that the diagnosis methods of the COVID-19 disease are the RT-PCR method, ELISA kits, quick tests, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, other laboratory factors and antigenic detection methods. Given the sensitivity and specificity of these methods at different periods using different samples, the disease interpretation can be performed accurately. The findings showed that proper laboratory equipment and appropriate laboratory kits are necessary for the rapid and precise identification of COVID-19.

Persistent SARS-CoV-2-positive over 4 months in a COVID-19 patient with CHB

In recent months, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a major public health crisis with takeover more than 1 million lives worldwide. The long-lasting existence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has not yet been reported. Herein, we report a case of SARS-CoV-2 infection with intermittent viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive for >4 months after clinical rehabilitation. A 35-year-old male was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia with fever but without other specific symptoms. The treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir, oxygen inhalation, and other symptomatic supportive treatment facilitated recovery, and the patient was discharged. However, his viral PCR test was continually positive in oropharyngeal swabs for >4 months after that. At the end of June 2020, he was still under quarantine and observation. The contribution of current antivirus therapy might be limited. The prognosis of COVID-19 patients might be irrelevant to the virus status. Thus, further investigation to evaluate the contagiousness of convalescent patients and the mechanism underlying the persistent existence of SARS-CoV-2 after recovery is essential. A new strategy of disease control, especially extending the follow-up period for recovered COVID-19 patients, is necessary to adapt to the current situation of pandemic.

Prevalence and Persistent Shedding of Fecal SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Patients With COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence and shedding of fecal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA indicate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and likely infectivity. We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence and the duration of shedding of fecal RNA in patients with COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Chinese databases Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data up to June 2020 were searched for studies evaluating fecal SARS-CoV-2 RNA, including anal and rectal samples, in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. The pooled prevalence of fecal RNA in patients with detectable respiratory RNA was estimated. The days of shedding and days to loss of fecal and respiratory RNA from presentation were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies (N = 1,636) met criteria. The pooled prevalence of fecal RNA in COVID-19 patients was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34%-52%). Higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms (52.4% vs 25.9%, odds ratio = 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7) compared with no GI symptoms, specifically diarrhea (51.6% vs 24.0%, odds ratio = 3.0, 95% CI 1.9-4.8), had detectable fecal RNA. After loss of respiratory RNA, 27% (95% CI 15%-44%) of the patients had persistent shedding of fecal RNA. Days of RNA shedding in the feces were longer than respiratory samples (21.8 vs 14.7 days, mean difference = 7.1 days, 95% CI 1.2-13.0). Furthermore, days to loss of fecal RNA lagged respiratory RNA by a mean of 4.8 days (95% CI 2.2-7.5).

DISCUSSION

Fecal SARS-CoV-2 RNA is commonly detected in COVID-19 patients with a 3-fold increased risk with diarrhea. Shedding of fecal RNA lasted more than 3 weeks after presentation and a week after last detectable respiratory RNA.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of discharged COVID-19 patients retesting positive for RT-PCR

BACKGROUND

With the increased number of patients discharged after having COVID-19, more and more studies have reported cases whose retesting was positive (RP) during the convalescent period, which brings a new public health challenge to the world.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang and VIP from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. The included studies were assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The RP rate of discharge patients was analyzed by a meta-analysis. We adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline.

FINDINGS

We have included 117 studies with 2669 RP participants after discharge. The methodological quality of 66 case reports were low to high, 42 case series and 3 cohort study were moderate to high, 3 case-control studies were moderate and 3 cross-sectional studies were low to moderate. The clinical manifestations of most RP patients were mild or asymptomatic, and CT imaging and laboratory examinations were usually normal. The existing risk factors suggest that more attention should be paid to sever patients, elderly patients, and patients with co-morbidities. The summary RP rate was 12·2% (95% CI 10·6-13·7) with high heterogeneity (I²  = 85%).

INTERPRETATION

To date, the causes and risk factors of RP result in discharged patients are not fully understood. High-quality etiological and clinical studies are needed to investigate these issues to further help us to make strategies to control and prevent its occurrence.

Towards a sensitive and accurate interpretation of molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review of 264 studies

BackgroundSensitive molecular diagnostics and correct test interpretation are crucial for accurate COVID-19 diagnosis and thereby essential for good clinical practice. Furthermore, they are a key factor in outbreak control where active case finding in combination with isolation and contact tracing are crucial.AimWith the objective to inform the public health and laboratory responses to the pandemic, we reviewed current published knowledge on the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection as assessed by RNA molecular detection in a wide range of clinical samples.MethodsWe performed an extensive search on studies published between 1 December 2019 and 15 May 2020, reporting on molecular detection and/or isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in any human laboratory specimen.ResultsWe compiled a dataset of 264 studies including 32,515 COVID-19 cases, and additionally aggregated data points (n = 2,777) from sampling of 217 adults with known infection timeline. We summarised data on SARS-CoV-2 detection in the respiratory and gastrointestinal tract, blood, oral fluid, tears, cerebrospinal fluid, peritoneal fluid, semen, vaginal fluid; where provided, we also summarised specific observations on SARS-CoV-2 detection in pregnancy, infancy, children, adolescents and immunocompromised individuals.ConclusionOptimal SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing relies on choosing the most appropriate sample type, collected with adequate sampling technique, and with the infection timeline in mind. We outlined knowledge gaps and directions for future well-documented systematic studies.

Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine and its potential role in person-to-person transmission and the environment-based spread of COVID-19

The recent detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in feces has led to speculation that it can be transmitted via the fecal-oral/ocular route. This review aims to critically evaluate the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, the quantity and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine, and whether these pose an infection risk in sanitary settings, sewage networks, wastewater treatment plants, and the wider environment (e.g. rivers, lakes and marine waters). A review of 48 independent studies revealed that severe GI dysfunction is only evident in a small number of COVID-19 cases, with 11 ± 2% exhibiting diarrhea and 12 ± 3% exhibiting vomiting and nausea. In addition to these cases, SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in feces from some asymptomatic, mildly- and pre-symptomatic individuals. Fecal shedding of the virus peaks in the symptomatic period and can persist for several weeks, but with declining abundances in the post-symptomatic phase. SARS-CoV-2 RNA is occasionally detected in urine, but reports in fecal samples are more frequent. The abundance of the virus genetic material in both urine (ca. 102-105 gc/ml) and feces (ca. 102-107 gc/ml) is much lower than in nasopharyngeal fluids (ca. 105-1011 gc/ml). There is strong evidence of multiplication of SARS-CoV-2 in the gut and infectious virus has occasionally been recovered from both urine and stool samples. The level and infectious capability of SARS-CoV-2 in vomit remain unknown. In comparison to enteric viruses transmitted via the fecal-oral route (e.g. norovirus, adenovirus), the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted via feces or urine appears much lower due to the lower relative amounts of virus present in feces/urine. The biggest risk of transmission will occur in clinical and care home settings where secondary handling of people and urine/fecal matter occurs. In addition, while SARS-CoV-2 RNA genetic material can be detected by in wastewater, this signal is greatly reduced by conventional treatment. Our analysis also suggests the likelihood of infection due to contact with sewage-contaminated water (e.g. swimming, surfing, angling) or food (e.g. salads, shellfish) is extremely low or negligible based on very low predicted abundances and limited environmental survival of SARS-CoV-2. These conclusions are corroborated by the fact that tens of million cases of COVID-19 have occurred globally, but exposure to feces or wastewater has never been implicated as a transmission vector.

Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine and its potential role in person-to-person transmission and the environment-based spread of COVID-19

The recent detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in feces has led to speculation that it can be transmitted via the fecal-oral/ocular route. This review aims to critically evaluate the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, the quantity and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine, and whether these pose an infection risk in sanitary settings, sewage networks, wastewater treatment plants, and the wider environment (e.g. rivers, lakes and marine waters). A review of 48 independent studies revealed that severe GI dysfunction is only evident in a small number of COVID-19 cases, with 11 ± 2% exhibiting diarrhea and 12 ± 3% exhibiting vomiting and nausea. In addition to these cases, SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in feces from some asymptomatic, mildly- and pre-symptomatic individuals. Fecal shedding of the virus peaks in the symptomatic period and can persist for several weeks, but with declining abundances in the post-symptomatic phase. SARS-CoV-2 RNA is occasionally detected in urine, but reports in fecal samples are more frequent. The abundance of the virus genetic material in both urine (ca. 10²-10⁵ gc/ml) and feces (ca. 10²-10⁷ gc/ml) is much lower than in nasopharyngeal fluids (ca. 10⁵-10¹¹ gc/ml). There is strong evidence of multiplication of SARS-CoV-2 in the gut and infectious virus has occasionally been recovered from both urine and stool samples. The level and infectious capability of SARS-CoV-2 in vomit remain unknown. In comparison to enteric viruses transmitted via the fecal-oral route (e.g. norovirus, adenovirus), the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted via feces or urine appears much lower due to the lower relative amounts of virus present in feces/urine. The biggest risk of transmission will occur in clinical and care home settings where secondary handling of people and urine/fecal matter occurs. In addition, while SARS-CoV-2 RNA genetic material can be detected by in wastewater, this signal is greatly reduced by conventional treatment. Our analysis also suggests the likelihood of infection due to contact with sewage-contaminated water (e.g. swimming, surfing, angling) or food (e.g. salads, shellfish) is extremely low or negligible based on very low predicted abundances and limited environmental survival of SARS-CoV-2. These conclusions are corroborated by the fact that tens of million cases of COVID-19 have occurred globally, but exposure to feces or wastewater has never been implicated as a transmission vector.

Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine and its potential role in person-to-person transmission and the environment-based spread of COVID-19

The recent detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in feces has led to speculation that it can be transmitted via the fecal-oral/ocular route. This review aims to critically evaluate the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, the quantity and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine, and whether these pose an infection risk in sanitary settings, sewage networks, wastewater treatment plants, and the wider environment (e.g. rivers, lakes and marine waters). A review of 48 independent studies revealed that severe GI dysfunction is only evident in a small number of COVID-19 cases, with 11 ± 2% exhibiting diarrhea and 12 ± 3% exhibiting vomiting and nausea. In addition to these cases, SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in feces from some asymptomatic, mildly- and pre-symptomatic individuals. Fecal shedding of the virus peaks in the symptomatic period and can persist for several weeks, but with declining abundances in the post-symptomatic phase. SARS-CoV-2 RNA is occasionally detected in urine, but reports in fecal samples are more frequent. The abundance of the virus genetic material in both urine (ca. 10²-10⁵ gc/ml) and feces (ca. 10²-10⁷ gc/ml) is much lower than in nasopharyngeal fluids (ca. 10⁵-10¹¹ gc/ml). There is strong evidence of multiplication of SARS-CoV-2 in the gut and infectious virus has occasionally been recovered from both urine and stool samples. The level and infectious capability of SARS-CoV-2 in vomit remain unknown. In comparison to enteric viruses transmitted via the fecal-oral route (e.g. norovirus, adenovirus), the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted via feces or urine appears much lower due to the lower relative amounts of virus present in feces/urine. The biggest risk of transmission will occur in clinical and care home settings where secondary handling of people and urine/fecal matter occurs. In addition, while SARS-CoV-2 RNA genetic material can be detected by in wastewater, this signal is greatly reduced by conventional treatment. Our analysis also suggests the likelihood of infection due to contact with sewage-contaminated water (e.g. swimming, surfing, angling) or food (e.g. salads, shellfish) is extremely low or negligible based on very low predicted abundances and limited environmental survival of SARS-CoV-2. These conclusions are corroborated by the fact that tens of million cases of COVID-19 have occurred globally, but exposure to feces or wastewater has never been implicated as a transmission vector.

Drawing Comparisons between SARS-CoV-2 and the Animal Coronaviruses

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel zoonotic coronavirus (CoV), SARS-CoV-2, has infected 46,182 million people, resulting in 1,197,026 deaths (as of 1 November 2020), with devastating and far-reaching impacts on economies and societies worldwide. The complex origin, extended human-to-human transmission, pathogenesis, host immune responses, and various clinical presentations of SARS-CoV-2 have presented serious challenges in understanding and combating the pandemic situation. Human CoVs gained attention only after the SARS-CoV outbreak of 2002-2003. On the other hand, animal CoVs have been studied extensively for many decades, providing a plethora of important information on their genetic diversity, transmission, tissue tropism and pathology, host immunity, and therapeutic and prophylactic strategies, some of which have striking resemblance to those seen with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the evolution of human CoVs, including SARS-CoV-2, is intermingled with those of animal CoVs. In this comprehensive review, attempts have been made to compare the current knowledge on evolution, transmission, pathogenesis, immunopathology, therapeutics, and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 with those of various animal CoVs. Information on animal CoVs might enhance our understanding of SARS-CoV-2, and accordingly, benefit the development of effective control and prevention strategies against COVID-19.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: an update of current literature

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiologic agent for the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, has caused a public health emergency. The need for additional research in viral pathogenesis is essential as the number of cases and deaths rise. Understanding the virus and its ability to cause disease has been the main focus of current literature; however, there is much unknown. Studies have revealed new findings related to the full transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 and its subsequent ability to cause infection by different means. The virus is hypothesized to be of increased virulence compared with previous coronavirus that caused epidemics, in part due to its overall structural integrity and resilience to inactivation. To date, many studies have discussed that the rationale behind its transmission potential is that viral RNA has unexpectedly been detected in multiple bodily fluids, with some samples having remained positive for extended periods of time. Additionally, the receptor by which the virus gains cellular entry, ACE2, has been found to be expressed in different human body systems, thereby potentiating its infection in those locations. In this evidence-based comprehensive review, we discuss various potential routes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2-respiratory/droplet, indirect, fecal-oral, vertical, sexual, and ocular. Understanding these different routes is important as they pertain to clinical practice, especially in taking preventative measures to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

A systematic review of re-detectable positive virus nucleic acid among COVID-19 patients in recovery phase

A large number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have been cured and discharged due to timely and effective treatments. While some discharged patients have been found re-positive nucleic acid again in the recovery phase. Until now, there is still a great challenge to its infectivity and the specific potential mechanism which needs further discussion. However, more intensive attention should be paid to the prognosis of recovered patients. In this review, we mainly focus on the characteristics, potential reasons, infectivity, and outcomes of re-detectable positive patients, thereby providing some novel insights into the cognition of COVID-19.

Incidence and Persistence of Viral Shedding in COVID-19 Post-acute Patients With Negativized Pharyngeal Swab: A Systematic Review

After the global spread of a severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by a coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), factors that influence viral diffusion have gained great attention. Human-to-human transmission mainly occurs through droplets, but viral RNA clearance in different biological fluids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We aimed to correlate the presence and the relevant temporal patterns of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in biological specimens (stool, urine, blood, and tears) of the transmission with clinical/epidemiological features in patients with COVID-19. We focused on the time window between the positivity of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests from different specimens. We used the Mantel-Cox log rank test to verify the differences in terms of viral shedding duration, while we employed the Mann-Whitney U-test for subgroup analysis. This review protocol was registered with PROSPERO number: CRD42020183629. We identified 147 studies; we included 55 (1,348 patients) for epidemiological analysis, of which we included 37 (364 patients) for statistical analysis. The most frequently used specimens other than respiratory tract swabs were stool samples (or anal/rectal swabs), with a positivity rate of 48.8%, followed by urine samples, with a positivity rate of 16.4%; blood samples showed a positivity rate of 17.5%. We found that fecal positivity duration (median 19 days) was significantly (p < 0.001) longer than respiratory tract positivity (median 14 days). Limited data are available about the other specimens. In conclusion, medical and social communities must pay close attention to negativization criteria for COVID-19, because patients could have longer alternative viral shedding.

Association between detectable SARS-COV-2 RNA in anal swabs and disease severity in patients with coronavirus disease 2019

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA was found in the intestines and feces, but its clinical significance is not completely clear. We aim to characterize the longitudinal test results of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in anal swabs and to explore the association with disease severity.

METHODS

We included laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, who were hospitalized in Guangzhou Eighth People's Hospital and excluded those who had not received anal swabs for SARS-COV-2 RNA testing. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data were obtained. Throat swabs and anal swabs were collected periodically for SARS-COV-2 RNA detection.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventeen eligible patients (median aged 50 years, 50.2% were females) were analyzed. 21.2% (46/217) of the patients were detected with SARS-CoV-2 RNA in anal swabs. The duration of viral RNA was longer, but the viral load was lower in anal swabs than throat swabs in the early stage of the disease. During a median follow-up of 20 days, 30 (13.8%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for high-flow nasal cannula or higher-level oxygen support measures to correct hypoxemia. Detectable viral RNA in anal swabs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-5.24), increased C-reactive protein (aHR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.35-7.32) and lymphocytopenia (aHR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.46-6.67) were independently associated with ICU admission. The cumulative incidence of ICU admission was higher among patients with detectable viral RNA in anal swabs (26.3% vs 10.7%, P = .006).

CONCLUSION

Detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the digestive tract was a potential warning indicator of severe disease.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Genome sequencing and the diagnosis of novel coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) in Africa: how far are we?

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) has become a pandemic. There is currently no vaccine or effective treatment for COVID-19. Early diagnosis and management is key to favourable outcomes. In order to prevent more widespread transmission of the virus, rapid detection and isolation of confirmed cases is of utmost importance. Real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the "gold standard" for the detection of SARS-COV-2. There are several challenges associated with this test from sample collection to processing and the longer turnaround time for the results to be available. More rapid and faster diagnostic tests that may produce results within minutes to a few hours will be instrumental in controlling the disease. Serological tests that detect specific antibodies to the virus may be such options. In this review, we extensively searched for studies that compared RT-PCR with serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We extracted the data from the various selected studies that compared the different tests and summarised the available evidence to determine which test is more appropriate especially in Africa. We also reviewed the current evidence and the challenges for the genome sequencing of SARS-COV-2 in Africa. Finally, we discuss the relevance of the different diagnostic tests and the importance of genome sequencing in identifying potential therapeutic options for the control of COVID-19 in Africa.

Features of enteric disease from human coronaviruses: Implications for COVID-19

Coronaviruses have long been studied in both human and veterinary fields. Whereas the initial detection of endemic human respiratory coronaviruses was problematic, detection of these and newly discovered human coronaviruses has been greatly facilitated with major advances in the laboratory. Nevertheless, technological factors can affect the accuracy and timeliness of virus detection. Many human coronaviruses can be variably found in stool samples. All human coronaviruses have been variably associated with symptoms of gastroenteritis. Coronaviruses can occasionally be cultured from enteric specimens, but most detection is accomplished with genetic amplification technologies. Excretion of viral RNA in stool can extend for a prolonged period. Culture‐positive stool samples have been found to exceed a fourteen day period after onset of infection for some coronaviruses. Virus can also sometimes be cultured from patients' respiratory samples during the late incubation period. Relatively asymptomatic patients may excrete virus. Both viable and nonviable virus can be found in the immediate environment of the patient, the health care worker, and less often the public. These lessons from the past study of animal and human coronaviruses can be extended to presumptions for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Already, the early reports from the coronavirus disease‐2019 pandemic are confirming some concerns. These data have the cumulative potential to cause us to rethink some current and common public health and infection control strategies.

coronaviruses are variably found in human enteric samples during the course of infection.

abdominal and intestinal illnesses are associated with coronavirus infections.

enteric excretion of live virus and viral RNA have been confirmed.

occasionally, live virus can be found in stool samples to exceed a fourteen day period after disease onset, and virus can also be cultured from these samples during the late incubation period or from asymptomatic individuals.

Optimization of group size in pool testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2: A simple mathematical model

Coronavirus disease (Covid‐19) has reached unprecedented pandemic levels and is affecting almost every country in the world. Ramping up the testing capacity of a country supposes an essential public health response to this new outbreak. A pool testing strategy where multiple samples are tested in a single reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) kit could potentially increase a country's testing capacity. The aim of this study is to propose a simple mathematical model to estimate the optimum number of pooled samples according to the relative prevalence of positive tests in a particular healthcare context, assuming that if a group tests negative, no further testing is done whereas if a group tests positive, all the subjects of the group are retested individually. The model predicts group sizes that range from 11 to 3 subjects. For a prevalence of 10% of positive tests, 40.6% of tests can be saved using testing groups of four subjects. For a 20% prevalence, 17.9% of tests can be saved using groups of three subjects. For higher prevalences, the strategy flattens and loses effectiveness. Pool testing individuals for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a valuable strategy that could considerably boost a country's testing capacity. However, further studies are needed to address how large these groups can be, without losing sensitivity on the RT‐PCR. The strategy best works in settings with a low prevalence of positive tests. It is best implemented in subgroups with low clinical suspicion. The model can be adapted to specific prevalences, generating a tailored to the context implementation of the pool testing strategy.

‐

Increasing testing capacity of a country is a key Public Health strategy in the pandemic.

‐

A pool testing strategy could potentially increase a country's testing capacity, especially when implemented in lower clinical suspicion groups.

‐

We provide a mathematical model to estimate the optimum number of subjects to include in a pool test, based on historical prevalences of positive results.