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

Viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in body fluids associated with sexual activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify and summarise the evidence on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA detection and persistence in body fluids associated with sexual activity (saliva, semen, vaginal secretion, urine and faeces/rectal secretion).

ELIGIBILITY

All studies that reported detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva, semen, vaginal secretion, urine and faeces/rectal swabs.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The WHO COVID-19 database from inception to 20 April 2022.

RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENT

The National Institutes of Health tools.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

The proportion of patients with positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and the proportion of patients with a viral duration/persistence of at least 14 days in each fluid was calculated using fixed or random effects models.

INCLUDED STUDIES

A total of 182 studies with 10 023 participants.

RESULTS

The combined proportion of individuals with detection of SARS-CoV-2 was 82.6% (95% CI: 68.8% to 91.0%) in saliva, 1.6% (95% CI: 0.9% to 2.6%) in semen, 2.7% (95% CI: 1.8% to 4.0%) in vaginal secretion, 3.8% (95% CI: 1.9% to 7.6%) in urine and 31.8% (95% CI: 26.4% to 37.7%) in faeces/rectal swabs. The maximum viral persistence for faeces/rectal secretions was 210 days, followed by semen 121 days, saliva 112 days, urine 77 days and vaginal secretions 13 days. Culturable SARS-CoV-2 was positive for saliva and faeces.

LIMITATIONS

Scarcity of longitudinal studies with follow-up until negative results.

INTERPRETATION

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in all fluids associated with sexual activity but was rare in semen and vaginal secretions. Ongoing droplet precautions and awareness of the potential risk of contact with faecal matter/rectal mucosa are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020204741.

Impact of DHCWs' Safety Perception on Vaccine Acceptance and Adoption of Risk Mitigation Strategies

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the association between safety perception on vaccine acceptance and adoptions of risk mitigation strategies among dental health care workers (DHCWs).

METHODS

A survey was emailed to DHCWs in the New Jersey area from December 2020 to January 2021. Perceived safety from regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of self, coworkers, and patients and its association with vaccine hesitancy and risk mitigation were ascertained. Risk Mitigation Strategy (RiMS) scores were computed from groupings of office measures: 1) physical distancing (reduced occupancy, traffic flow, donning of masks, minimal room crowding), 2) personal protective equipment (fitted for N95; donning N95 masks; use of face shields; coverings for head, body, and feet), and 3) environmental disinfection (suction, air filtration, ultraviolet, surface wiping).

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 testing of dental professionals, coworkers, and patients were perceived to provide safety at 49%, 55%, and 68%, respectively. While dentists were least likely to feel safe with regular self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 (P < 0.001) as compared with hygienists and assistants, they were more willing than hygienists (P = 0.004; odds ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.21 to 2.66]) and assistants (P < 0.001; odds ratio, 3.32 [95% CI, 1.93 to 5.71]) to receive the vaccine. RiMS scores ranged from 0 to 19 for 467 participants (mean [SD], 10.9 [2.9]). RiMS scores did not significantly differ among groups of DHCWs; however, mean RiMS scores were higher among those who received or planned to receive the COVID-19 vaccine than those with who did not (P = 0.004). DHCWs who felt safer with regular testing had greater RiMS scores than those who did not (11.0 vs. 10.3, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding DHCWs' perception of risk and safety is crucial, as it likely influences attitudes toward testing and implementation of office risk mitigation policies. Clinical studies that correlate risk perception and RiMS with SARS-CoV-2 testing are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of RiMS in dental care settings.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

Educators, clinicians, and policy makers can use the results of this study when improving attitudes toward testing and implementation of risk mitigation policies within dental offices, for current and future pandemics.

Performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swab for diagnosis of COVID-19 by NAAT in cross-sectional studies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the preferred method to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Saliva has been suggested as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), but previous systematic reviews were limited by the number and types of studies available. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of saliva compared with NPS for COVID-19. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases up to 24 April 2021 for studies that directly compared paired NPS and saliva specimens taken at the time of diagnosis. Meta-analysis was performed using an exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Of 2683 records, we included 23 studies with 25 cohorts, comprising 11,582 paired specimens. A wide variety of NAAT assays and collection methods were used. Meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI = 83-90 %) and specificity of 99 % (95 % CI = 98-99 %). Subgroup analyses showed the highest sensitivity when the suspected individual is tested in an outpatient setting and is symptomatic. Our results support the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to NPS NAAT for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Advances in laboratory detection methods and technology application of SARS-CoV-2

At present, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is raging worldwide, and the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak caused by SARS-CoV-2 seriously threatens the life and health of all humankind. There is no specific medicine for novel coronavirus yet. So, laboratory diagnoses of novel coronavirus as soon as possible and isolation of the source of infection play a vital role in preventing and controlling the epidemic. Therefore, selecting appropriate detection techniques and methods is particularly important to improve the efficiency of disease diagnosis and treatment and to curb the outbreak of infectious diseases. In this paper, virus nucleic acid, protein, and serum immunology were reviewed to provide a reference for further developing virus detection technology to provide better prevention and treatment strategies and research ideas for clinicians and researchers.

SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid urine antigen in hospitalized patients with Covid-19

Background

SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag) can be detected in the blood of patients with Covid-19. We used a highly sensitive and specific assay to explore the presence of N-Ag in urine during the course of Covid-19, and explore its relationship with the severity of the disease.

Methods

We studied urine and blood N-Ag using highly sensitive immunoassay in 82 patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection proven by PCR.

Results

In the first and second weeks of Covid-19, hospitalized patients tested positive for urinary N-Ag (81.25% and 71.79%, respectively), and blood N-Ag (93.75% and 94.87%, respectively). High urinary N-Ag levels were associated with the absence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies, admission in intensive care units, high C-reactive protein levels, lymphopenia, eosinopenia, and high lactate dehydrogenase. A higher accuracy was observed for urine N-Ag as a predictor of severe Covid-19 compared to blood N-Ag.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrate that N-Ag is present in the urine of patients hospitalized in the early phase of Covid-19. As a direct marker of SARS-CoV-2, urinary N-Ag reflects the dissemination of viral compounds in the body. Urine N-Ag may be a useful marker for disease severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections.