Airborne SARS-CoV-2 in home and hospital environments investigated with a high-powered air sampler.

BACKGROUND: The initial aim was to study the effects of face masks worn by recently infected individuals on the airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2, but findings motivated us to proceed with comparing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples near infected individuals at home with those near infected intensive care unit (ICU) patients. AIM: To assess the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the air of homes of infected individuals and in ICU rooms of critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were undergoing different forms of potential aerosol-generating medical procedures. METHODS: A high-volume air sampler method was developed that used a household vacuum cleaner with surgical face masks serving as sample filters. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was harvested from these filters and analysed by polymerase chain reaction. Fog experiments were performed to visualize the airflow around the air sampler. Air samples were acquired in close proximity of infected individuals, with or without wearing face masks, in their homes. Environmental air samples remote from these infected individuals were also obtained, plus samples near patients in the ICU undergoing potential aerosol-generating medical procedures. FINDINGS: Wearing a face mask resulted in a delayed and reduced flow of the fog into the air sampler. Face masks worn by infected individuals were found to contain SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 71% of cases. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in air samples regardless of mask experiments. The proportion of positive air samples was higher in the homes (29/41; 70.7%) than in the ICU (4/17; 23.5%) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 RNA could be detected in air samples by using a vacuum cleaner based air sampler method. Air samples in the home environment of recently infected individuals contained SARS-CoV-2 RNA nearly three times more frequently by comparison with those obtained in ICU rooms during potential aerosol-generating medical procedures.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers and patients in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands confirmed by whole-genome sequencing.

AIM: To investigate the sources of infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands during the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using epidemiological and whole-genome sequencing data. METHODS: From 3rd April to 11th May 2020, 88 HCWs and 215 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. Whole-genome sequences were obtained for 30 HCWs and 20 patients. RESULTS: Seven and 11 sequence types were identified in HCWs and patients, respectively. Cluster A was the most common sequence type, detected in 23 (77%) HCWs; of these, 14 (61%) had direct patient contact and nine (39%) had indirect patient contact. In addition, seven patients who were not hospitalized in the COVID-19 cohort isolation ward who became positive during their admission were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) cluster A. Following universal masking of all HCWs and emphasis on physical distancing during meals and breaks, no further evidence was found for patient-to-HCW or HCW-to-HCW transmission or vice versa. CONCLUSION: The finding that patients and HCWs were infected with SARS-CoV-2 cluster A suggests both HCW-to-HCW and HCW-to-patient transmission.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) compared with an ELISA and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) in individuals with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Patients presenting to a Dutch teaching hospital were eligible between 17 March and 10 April 2020, when they had respiratory symptoms that were suspected for COVID-19. The performances of six different LFAs were evaluated in plasma samples obtained on corresponding respiratory sample dates of NATs testing. Subsequently, the best performing LFA was evaluated in 228 patients and in 50 sera of a historical patient control group. RESULTS: In the pilot analysis, sensitivity characteristics of LFA were heterogeneous, ranging from 2/20 (10%; 95% CI 0%-23%) to 11/20 (55%; 95% CI 33%-77%). In the total cohort, Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test LFA had a sensitivity of 43/99 (43%; 95% CI 34%-53%) and specificity of 126/129 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%). Sensitivity increased to 31/52 (60%; 95% CI 46%-73%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms, and to 21/33 (64%; 95% CI 47%-80%) in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥100 mg/L. Sensitivity and specificity of Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA was 59/95 (62%; 95% CI 52%-72%) and 125/128 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%) in all patients, respectively, but sensitivity increased to 38/48 (79%; 95% CI 68%-91%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: There is large variability in diagnostic test performance between rapid LFAs, but overall limited sensitivity and high specificity in acutely admitted patients. Sensitivity improved in patients with longer existing symptoms or high CRP. LFAs should only be considered as additional triage tools when these may lead to the improvement of hospital logistics.