Mucosal Immunity

Early and accurate detection is critical for preventing the spread of COVID-19 and providing appropriate care for patients. Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, which require inserting a long shaft into the nasal cavity to collect a sample from the back of the nose and throat, are currently the gold standard for collecting a specimen for diagnosis. But the procedure is technically challenging, often uncomfortable for patients and requires personal protective equipment that may be in short supply. Other approaches to collecting specimens—including from an oropharyngeal swab and sputum—have been tested in small studies, but there is uncertainty about which method is best for detecting the virus. In a new study published in EBioMedicine, investigators from Brigham and Women's Hospital conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzing data from more than 3,000 specimens to compare the three approaches. The team found that sputum testing detected the RNA of the virus that causes COVID-19 at significantly higher rates while oropharyngeal swab testing had lower rates. Regardless of the collection method, the earlier samples were collected after symptoms began, the higher the detection rate.

"The accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 has implications for health care, return-to-work, infection control and public health," said corresponding author Jonathan Li, MD, a faculty member in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Brigham. "Our gold standard in and out of the hospital is the nasopharyngeal swab, but there's a lot of confusion about which sampling modality is best and most sensitive. Our study shows that sputum testing resulted in significantly higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 detection and supports the use of this type of testing as a valuable method for the diagnosis and monitoring of COVID-19 patients." Li and his colleagues scoured the literature—both preprints and published papers—for studies that assessed at least two respiratory sampling sites using an NP swab, oropharyngeal swab or sputum. From more than 1,000 studies, they identified 11 that met their criteria. These studies included results from a total of 3,442 respiratory tract specimens. The team examined how often each collection method produced a positive result. For NP swabs, the rate was 54 percent; for oropharyngeal swabs, 43 percent; for sputum, 71 percent. The rate of viral detection was significantly higher in sputum than either oropharyngeal swabs or NP swabs. Detection rates were highest within one week of symptom onset for all three tests.

Study Published in EbioMedicine (July 18, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102903

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first emerged in late 2019 in China.At the time of writing, its causative agent SARS-CoV-2 has spread worldwide i…...

The lungs are ground zero for COVID-19, but blood clots may play a surprisingly big role in severe illness. On rounds in a 20-bed intensive care unit (ICU) one recent day, physician Joshua Denson assessed two patients with seizures, many with respiratory failure and others whose kidneys were on a dangerous downhill slide. Days earlier, his rounds had been interrupted as his team tried, and failed, to resuscitate a young woman whose heart had stopped. All shared one thing, says Denson, a pulmonary and critical care physician at the Tulane University School of Medicine. “They are all COVID positive.”

As the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 surges past 2.2 million globally and deaths surpass 150,000, clinicians and pathologists are struggling to understand the damage wrought by the coronavirus as it tears through the body. They are realizing that although the lungs are ground zero, its reach can extend to many organs including the heart and blood vessels, kidneys, gut, and brain.  “[The disease] can attack almost anything in the body with devastating consequences,” says cardiologist Harlan Krumholz of Yale University and Yale-New Haven Hospital, who is leading multiple efforts to gather clinical data on COVID-19. “Its ferocity is breathtaking and humbling.” 

Understanding the rampage could help the doctors on the front lines treat the fraction of infected people who become desperately and sometimes mysteriously ill. Does a dangerous, newly observed tendency to blood clotting transform some mild cases into life-threatening emergencies? Is an overzealous immune response behind the worst cases, suggesting treatment with immune-suppressing drugs could help? What explains the startlingly low blood oxygen that some physicians are reporting in patients who nonetheless are not gasping for breath? “Taking a systems approach may be beneficial as we start thinking about therapies,” says Nilam Mangalmurti, a pulmonary intensivist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP)....

Prodigious virus numbers in Covid-19 linked to contagion, say experts...

L’entreprise britannique Synairgen déclare avoir conçu un traitement permettant de réduire largement les risques de mortalité en cas de contamination par le SARS-CoV-2. La formule, baptisée SNG001, affiche des résultats significatifs ; ceux-ci n’ont toutefois pas encore été validés par un comité...

Credit: Toshio Hirano and Masaaki Murakami. Immunity.April 22, 2020 Research into how the SARS-CoV-2 virus induces death is suggesting...

See Trending Virtual Issue...