Study and interest of cellular load in respiratory samples for the optimization of molecular virological diagnosis in clinical practice

Beyond prediction: unveiling the prognostic power of μ-opioid and cannabinoid receptors, alongside immune mediators, in assessing the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

This study aims to explore the potential of utilizing the expression levels of cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2), μ-opioid receptor (MOR), MCP-1, IL-17, IFN-γ, and osteopontin as predictors for the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overarching goal is to delineate the pathogenic mechanisms associated with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Using quantitative Real-time PCR, we analyzed the gene expression levels of CB2 and MOR in nasopharynx specimens obtained from patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 46 individuals classified as having severe symptoms and 46 as non-severe. Additionally, we measured the circulating levels of MCP-1, IL-17, IFN-γ, and osteopontin using an ELISA assay. We examined the predictive capabilities of these variables and explored their correlations across all patient groups.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrated a significant increase in MOR gene expression in the epithelium of patients with severe infection. The expression of CB2 receptor was also elevated in both male and female patients with severe symptoms. Furthermore, we observed concurrent rises in MCP-1, IL-17, IFN-γ, and osteopontin levels in patients, which were linked to disease severity. CB2, MOR, MCP-1, IL-17, IFN-γ, and osteopontin showed strong predictive abilities in distinguishing between patients with varying degrees of SARS-CoV-2 severity. Moreover, we identified a significant correlation between CB2 expression and the levels of MOR, MCP-1, osteopontin, and IFN-γ.

CONCLUSIONS

These results underline the interconnected nature of molecular mediators in a sequential manner, suggesting that their overexpression may play a role in the development of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

An Efficient Extraction Method Allowing the Genetic Evaluation of Host DNA from Samples Collected for Virus Infection Diagnosis in Viral Transport Medium

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, an extraordinary number of nasopharyngeal secretion samples inoculated in viral transport medium (VTM) were collected and analyzed to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition to viral detection, those samples can also be a source of host genomic material, providing excellent opportunities for biobanking and research. Objective: To describe a simple, in-house-developed DNA extraction method to obtain high yield and quality genomic DNA from VTM samples for host genetic analysis and assess its relative efficiency by comparing its yield and suitability to downstream applications to two different commercial DNA extraction kits. Methods: In this study, 13 VTM samples were processed by two commercial silica-based kits and compared with an in-House-developed protocol for host DNA extraction. An additional 452 samples were processed by the in-House method. The quantity and quality of the differentially extracted DNA samples were assessed by Qubit and spectrophotometric measurements. The suitability of extracted samples for downstream applications was tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification followed by amplicon sequencing and allelic discrimination in real-time PCR. Results: The in-House method provided greater median DNA yield (0.81 μg), being significantly different from the PureLink® method (0.14 μg, p < 0.001), but not from the QIAamp® method (0.47 μg, p = 0.980). Overall satisfactory results in DNA concentrations and purity, in addition to cost, were observed using the in-House method, whose samples were able to produce clear amplification in PCR and sequencing reads, as well as effective allelic discrimination in real-time PCR TaqMan® assay. Conclusion: The described in-House method proved to be suitable and economically viable for genomic DNA extraction from VTM samples for biobanking purposes. These results are extremely valuable for the study of the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergent infectious diseases, allowing host genetic studies to be performed in samples initially collected for diagnosis.

Multipathogen Detection in Patients with Respiratory Tract Infection: Identification of Non-respiratory Viruses Using Multiplex Real-time Polymerase Reaction

Background: Due to the overlapping clinical characteristics of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and the unavailability of appropriate diagnostic techniques, the diagnosis of RTIs is controversial. Objectives: The study aimed to prompt the diagnosis of RTIs using commercial multiplex real-time PCR. Methods: The survey undertook for two years (2019 - 2020) on 144 flu-negative immunocompetent outpatients. Respiratory samples were examined by multiplex PCR assays. Results: Study population consisted of females (n = 77, 53.5%) and males (n = 67, 46.5%). The mean age was 42.8 ± 23.7 years. Thirty-one (21.5%) patients were infected with only one viral or bacterial infection. Eighty-two (57%) were infected with more than one pathogen. Ninety-five (37%) and 161 (62%) tests were positive for bacterial and viral pathogens, respectively. Community-acquired Pneumonia (CAP) and atypical CAP pathogens included 17% and 10% of respiratory specimens, respectively. The predominant pathogens consisted of Human Herpes Virus 7 (HHV-7) (n = 38, 15.5%), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) (n = 34, 13.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (n = 24, 9.8%), and Human Herpes Virus 6 (HHV-6) (n = 21, 8.5%). There were associations between pathogen findings and special age categories. Fever, cough, dyspnea, and hemoptysis were associated with certain pathogens. There was no substantial difference between viral and bacterial Ct concerning gender, age group, and comorbidities. Conclusions: Multiplex diagnostic assays significantly increased the rate of appropriate diagnosis of respiratory pathogens. However, further investigation is needed to find non-respiratory viruses' significance in respiratory specimens of immunocompetent symptomatic patients.

Pooled Prevalence Estimate of Ocular Manifestations in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

There are reports of ocular tropism due to respiratory viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Various studies have shown ocular manifestation in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. We aimed to identify ophthalmic manifestations in COVID-19 patients and establish an association between ocular symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for publications from December 2019 to April 2021. The search included MeSH terms such as SARS-CoV-2 and ocular manifestations. The pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using binomial distribution and random effects. The meta-regression method was used to examine factors affecting heterogeneity between studies.

Results

Of the 412 retrieved articles, 23 studies with a total of 3,650 COVID-19 patients were analyzed. The PPE for any ocular manifestations was 23.77% (95% CI: 15.73-31.81). The most prevalent symptom was dry eyes with a PPE of 13.66% (95% CI: 5.01-25.51). The PPE with 95% CI for conjunctival hyperemia, conjunctival congestion/conjunctivitis, and ocular pain was 13.41% (4.65-25.51), 9.14% (6.13-12.15), and 10.34% (4.90-15.78), respectively. Only two studies reported ocular discomfort and diplopia. The results of meta-regression analysis showed that age and sample size had no significant effect on the prevalence of any ocular manifestations. There was no significant publication bias in our meta-analysis.

Conclusion

There is a high prevalence of ocular manifestations in COVID-19 patients. The most common symptoms are dry eyes, conjunctival hyperemia, conjunctival congestion/conjunctivitis, ocular pain, irritation/itching/burning sensation, and foreign body sensation.

Diagnostic performance of the combined nasal and throat swab in patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Accurate diagnosis in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential to guide treatment and limit spread of the virus. The combined nasal and throat swab is used widely, but its diagnostic performance is uncertain.

METHODS

In a prospective, multi-centre, cohort study conducted in secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, we evaluated the combined nasal and throat swab with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in consecutive patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. Diagnostic performance of the index and serial tests was evaluated for a primary outcome of confirmed or probable COVID-19, and a secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing. The diagnosis was adjudicated by a panel, who recorded clinical, laboratory and radiological features blinded to the test results.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1368 consecutive patients (median age 68 [interquartile range, IQR 53-80] years, 47% women) who underwent a total of 3822 tests (median 2 [IQR 1-3] tests per patient). The primary outcome occurred in 36% (496/1368), of whom 65% (323/496) and 35% (173/496) had confirmed and probable COVID-19, respectively. The index test was positive in 255/496 (51%) patients with the primary outcome, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 51.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48.8 to 54.1%) and 99.5% (95% CI 99.0 to 99.8%). Sensitivity increased in those undergoing 2, 3 or 4 tests to 60.1% (95% CI 56.7 to 63.4%), 68.3% (95% CI 64.0 to 72.3%) and 77.6% (95% CI 72.7 to 81.9%), respectively. The sensitivity of the index test was 78.9% (95% CI 74.4 to 83.2%) for the secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted to hospital, a single combined nasal and throat swab with RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 has excellent specificity, but limited diagnostic sensitivity for COVID-19. Diagnostic performance is significantly improved by repeated testing.

Are eyes the windows to COVID-19? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To review and critically appraise the ocular manifestation and the presence of SARS-CoV-2 through PCR positivity from ocular samples in COVID-19-related patients. Moreover, to evaluate the time and severity association of ocular manifestation to systemic disease of COVID-19.

Methods and analysis

A systematic literature search from PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases was performed using standardised Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Selected keywords were related to COVID-19, ocular manifestation and PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2. Studies were assessed for their validity, and the data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Observational, case series and case report studies were included if they met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled prevalence of ocular manifestations and PCR positivity from tears.

Results

Thirty-one articles were qualitatively reviewed, and 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of ocular manifestation among COVID-19-related patients was 0.05 (95% CI 0.02% to 0.08). The overall PCR from tears samples positivity rate from COVID-19-related patients presenting with ocular manifestation was 0.38 (95% CI 0.14% to 0.65). Ocular manifestation could precede systemic manifestation in about 0.28 (95% CI 0.05% to 0.58) of COVID-19-related patients with ocular manifestations. Besides, ocular manifestation was not associated with a severe form of COVID-19.

Conclusion

Although the overall number of ocular manifestation and SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate from ocular samples was very low, around a quarter of COVID-19-related patients with ocular manifestation presented their ocular manifestation earlier than the systemic manifestation regardless of the severity. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2 PCR was positive from one-third of ocular samples, which could potentially be the source of infection to the respiratory tract and the environment, although the infectivity is yet to be determined.

Cellular DNA quantification in respiratory samples for the normalization of viral load: a real need?

•

Higher number of cells was observed in virus-pos as compared to virus-neg samples.

•

No difference in the kinetics of viral shedding was observed.

•

The flocked swab is a valid alternative to commonly used specimen collection tools.

•

Normalization seems to be unnecessary in samples collected with flocked nasal swabs.

Background

Respiratory tract infections have an enormous social economic impact, with high incidence of hospitalization and high costs. Adequate specimen collection is the first crucial step for the correct diagnosis of viral respiratory infections.

Objectives

The present retrospective study aimed: i) to verify the cell yield obtained from sampling the nasal respiratory tract using mid-turbinate flocked swabs; ii) to evaluate the normalization of viral load, based on cell number; and iii) to compare the kinetics of viral infection obtained with normalized vs non-normalized viral load.

Study design

The number of cells were quantified by real-time PCR in residual extract of nasal swabs tested for respiratory viruses detection and stored at −80 °C in a universal transport medium (UTM™).

Results

A total of 513 virus-positive and 226 virus-negative samples were analyzed. Overall, a median of 4.42 log₁₀ β2-microgolubin DNA copy number/ml of UTM^™ (range 1.17–7.26) was detected. A significantly higher number of cells was observed in virus-positive as compared to virus-negative samples (4.75 vs 3.76; p < 0.001). Viral loads expressed as log₁₀ RNA copies/ml of UTM^™ and log₁₀ RNA copies/median number of cells were compared in virus-positive samples and a strict correlation (r = 0.89, p < 0.001) and agreement (R2 = 0.82) were observed. In addition, infection kinetics were compared using the two methods with a follow-up series of eight episodes of viral infection and the mean difference was -0.57 log₁₀ (range −1.99 to 0.40).

Conclusions

The normalization of viral load using cellular load compliments the validation of real-time PCR results in the diagnosis of respiratory viruses but is not strictly needed.