Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Conjunctival Swab Samples Among Patients Presenting with Conjunctivitis During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cycle threshold values of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in conjunctival swabs and nasopharyngeal secretions: a comparative study from a tertiary care center in India

PURPOSE

To detect the viral RNA load of SARS-CoV-2 in conjunctival swabs of COVID-19 patients, and compare with nasopharyngeal swabs.

METHODS

Conjunctival swabs of COVID-19 patients (with PCR positive nasopharyngeal swabs) were subjected to quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The cycle threshold (Ct) values of Open Reading Frame 1 (ORF 1 Ab gene) and nucleoprotein (N gene) PCRs were used to assess the viral RNA load, and compare them with the baseline values of nasopharyngeal swabs.

RESULTS

Of 93 patients, 17 (18.27%) demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 RNA in conjunctival swabs. Baseline nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at a median of 2 days; while, the conjunctival swabs were collected at median 7 days, from onset of illness (p < 0.001). Despite a significant delay in conjunctival swab collection than nasopharyngeal swabs, the Ct values (ORF or N gene PCRs) were comparable between nasopharyngeal swab and conjunctival swab samples. Subsequently, during the recovery period, in four of these 17 patients (with conjunctival swab positivity), when the second nasopharyngeal swab was 'negative', the conjunctival swab was 'positive'.

CONCLUSION

The conjunctival swabs demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 17 (18.27%) of 93 COVID-19 patients. Our results may suggest a delayed or a prolonged shedding of the virus/viral RNA on the ocular surface than in nasopharyngeal mucosa.

Conjunctival Swabs Reveal Higher Detection Rate Compared to Schirmer Strips for SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection in Tears of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in tear samples and to investigate whether it correlates with ocular findings and patients’ prognosis in Brazil. Methods: Tears were collected using Schirmer strips (SS) and conjunctival swabs (CS) from patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Samples were analyzed using qRT-PCR. Demographic and clinical data, ocular symptoms, and Schirmer tests (ST) were collected from patients. Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to rate comorbidities, and patients were monitored until hospital discharge or death. Results: There were 61 hospitalized patients, 33 of which were diagnosed with COVID-19. Within the confirmed COVID-19 patients, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 18.2% (n = 6) of CS and 12.1% (n = 4) of SS samples. Subjective and objective parameters for dry eye syndrome (e.g., ST COVID-19: 8.3 ± 6.4mm, non-COVID-19: 8.9 ± 6.6mm, p > 0.05) were comparable between COVID-19 (n = 33) and non-COVID-19 patients (n = 28). Among the 16 COVID-19 patients exhibiting ocular symptoms, only tearing was reported significantly more frequently when tear samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p < 0.05). Strikingly, patients whose tears tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had significantly inferior CCI (pos.: 34.0 ± 31.8%, neg.: 67.6 ± 36.4%, p < 0.05) and higher mortality rates (pos.: 50.0%, neg.: 7.4%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 was detected with a prevalence of 18.2% on the ocular surface. Decreased CCI and increased mortality rate in the positive tear group suggests that viral detection may relate to prognosis and highlight the need of personal protective measures for healthcare professionals. Most of the patients, regardless of COVID-19 diagnosis, had low tear production and eye discomfort, possibly pointing to the need for artificial tear use during hospitalization.

COVID-19 and the eye: alternative facts The 2022 Bowman Club, David L. Easty lecture

In addition to catastrophic loss of life, and dramatic and unwanted alterations to the daily lives of those left behind, the COVID-19 pandemic has fostered the publication and dissemination of an unprecedented quantity of peer-reviewed medical and scientific publications on a single subject. In particular, the ophthalmic literature is now replete with clinical and laboratory studies on putative eye involvement by SARS-CoV-2, the aetiologic agent of COVID-19. In this review, we critically appraise the published literature on COVID-19, and suggest that the quality of scientific peer review and editorial decision-making also suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.