Surveillance of Vermont wildlife in 2021-2022 reveals no detected SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA

Previous studies have documented natural infections of SARS-CoV-2 in various domestic and wild animals. More recently, studies have been published noting the susceptibility of members of the Cervidae family, and infections in both wild and captive cervid populations. In this study, we investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in mammalian wildlife within the state of Vermont. 739 nasal or throat samples were collected from wildlife throughout the state during the 2021 and 2022 harvest season. Data was collected from red and gray foxes (Vulpes vulples and Urocyon cineroargentus, respectively), fishers (Martes pennati), river otters (Lutra canadensis), coyotes (Canis lantrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus rufus), black bears (Ursus americanus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Samples were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 via quantitative RT-qPCR using the CDC N1/N2 primer set and/or the WHO-E gene primer set. Surprisingly, we initially detected a number of N1 and/or N2 positive samples with high cycle threshold values, though after conducting environmental swabbing of the laboratory and verifying with a second independent primer set (WHO-E) and PCR without reverse transcriptase, we showed that these were false positives due to plasmid contamination from a construct expressing the N gene in the general laboratory environment. Our final results indicate that no sampled wildlife were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and highlight the importance of physically separate locations for the processing of samples for surveillance and experiments that require the use of plasmid DNA containing the target RNA sequence. These negative findings are surprising, given that most published North America studies have found SARS-CoV-2 within their deer populations. The absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in populations sampled here may provide insights in to the various environmental and anthropogenic factors that reduce spillover and spread in North American's wildlife populations.

Surveillance of Vermont wildlife in 2021-2022 reveals no detected SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA

Previous studies have documented natural infections of SARS-CoV-2 in various domestic and wild animals. More recently, studies have been published noting the susceptibility of members of the Cervidae family, and infections in both wild and captive cervid populations. In this study, we investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in mammalian wildlife within the state of Vermont. 739 nasal or throat samples were collected from wildlife throughout the state during the 2021 and 2022 harvest season. Data was collected from red and gray foxes ( Vulpes vulples and Urocyon cineroargentus , respectively), fishers ( Martes pennati ), river otters ( Lutra canadensis ), coyotes ( Canis lantrans ), bobcats ( Lynx rufus rufus ), black bears ( Ursus americanus ), and white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ). Samples were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 via quantitative RT-qPCR using the CDC N1/N2 primer set and/or the WHO-E gene primer set. Our results indicate that no sampled wildlife were positive for SARS-CoV-2. This finding is surprising, given that most published North America studies have found SARS-CoV-2 within their deer populations. The absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in populations sampled here may provide insights in to the various environmental and anthropogenic factors that reduce spillover and spread in North American's wildlife populations.

The efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron, droperidol, perphenazine, and metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after major gynecologic surgery

The prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) ondansetron, droperidol, perphenazine, and metoclopramide was evaluated in a prospective, double-blind study of 360 ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Subjects were randomized to receive i.v., one of ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, perphenazine 5 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, or placebo prior to induction of anesthesia. Hypotension immediately after administration of metoclopramide was observed in two patients and four patients given ondansetron developed profound systolic hypotension at induction of anesthesia. Twenty-two percent of patients receiving droperidol became sedated. Postoperatively, patients developing severe nausea, retching, or vomiting, defined as severe emetic sequelae (SES), were deemed to have failed antiemetic prophylaxis and received antiemetic rescue. A significantly larger number of patients who received i.v. ondansetron (63%), droperidol (76%), and perphenazine (70%) were free of SES when compared to placebo (43%); P < 0.05. Metoclopramide was ineffective. Although ondansetron, droperidol, and perphenazine were effective in providing antiemetic prophylaxis, only i.v. perphenazine was free of side effects. Hence, we conclude that perphenazine is the best choice for antiemetic prophylaxis after TAH.