A higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population in Brazil

The historical and social vulnerability of quilombola communities in Brazil can make them especially fragile in the face of COVID-19, considering that several individuals have precarious health systems and inadequate access to water. This work aimed to characterize the frequency of SARS-COV-2 infections and the presence of IgM and IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in quilombola populations and their relationship with the presence of risk factors or preexisting chronic diseases in the quilombola communities. We analyzed the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, serological status, comorbidities, and symptoms of 1,994 individuals (478 males and 1,536 females) from 18 Brazilian municipalities in the State of Sergipe of quilombola communities, which were evaluated at different epidemiological weeks, starting at the 32nd (August 6th) and ending at the 40th (October 3rd) epidemiological week. More than 70% of studied families live in rural areas and they have an extreme poverty social status. Although we found a higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population, their SARS-CoV-2 reactivity and IgM and IgG positivity varied across the communities investigated. Arterial hypertension was the most risk factor, being found in 27.8% of the individuals (9.5% in stage 1, 10.8% in stage 2, and 7.5% in stage 3). The most common COVID-19 symptoms and comorbidities were headache, runny nose, flu, and dyslipidemia. However, most individuals were asymptomatic (79.9%). Our data indicate that mass testing must be incorporated into public policy to improve the health care system available to quilombola populations during a future pandemic or epidemic.

Challenges in Direct Detection of Flaviviruses: A Review

Arthropods transmit arboviruses via mosquito and tick bites to humans and other animals. The genus flavivirus, which causes diseases, sequelae, and thousands of deaths, mainly in developing and underdeveloped countries, is among the arboviruses of interest to public health. Given the importance of early and accurate diagnosis, this review analyzes the methods of direct detection of flaviviruses, such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification, microfluidics, localized surface plasmon resonance, and surface-enhanced Raman scattering, and presents the advantages, disadvantages, and detection limits identified in studies reported in the literature for each methodology. Among the different methods available, it is essential to balance four fundamental indicators to determine the ideal test: good sensitivity, high specificity, low false positive rate, and rapid results. Among the methods analyzed, reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification stands out, owing to result availability within a few minutes, with good sensitivity and specificity; in addition, it is the best-characterized methodology.

Rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global health threat and remains a challenge for modern medicine. Rapid and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 is vital for proper disease and outbreak management. Our review aimed to analyze scientific articles published in the literature addressing the rapid tests available for COVID-19 diagnosis at the first year of the pandemic.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed from October 22 to 27, 2020, searching data published in PubMed and Google Scholar databases, using subject headings or keywords related to point of care and rapid test diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

RESULTS

The first survey identified 403 articles, but only 23 met the defined criteria for the systematic analysis. The sensitivity and specificity parameters were assessed in 19 studies, and the data suggested that there was lower sensitivity in the period 1 to 7 days after the emergence of symptoms (∼38%) higher sensitivity at 8 to 14 days (∼90%), and the highest at 15 to 39 days (∼98%). Accuracy was reported in six studies, reporting values above 50%. Only three studies reported a possible cross-reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the rapid tests used in the first year of the pandemic were tested with a small number of samples and not adequately validated. And the studies that described them were conducted with little scientific rigor.