Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Lancet Microbe ; 3(11): e814-e823, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1996842

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Assessing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children in schools is of crucial importance to inform public health action. We assessed frequency of acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 by contacts of pupils with COVID-19 in schools and households, and quantified SARS-CoV-2 shedding into air and onto fomites in both settings. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort and environmental sampling study in London, UK in eight schools. Schools reporting new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection to local health protection teams were invited to take part if a child index case had been attending school in the 48 h before a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. At the time of the study, PCR testing was available to symptomatic individuals only. Children aged 2-14 years (extended to <18 years in November, 2020) with a new nose or throat swab SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR from an accredited laboratory were included. Incidents involving exposure to at least one index pupil with COVID-19 were identified (the prevailing variants were original, α, and δ). Weekly PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done on immediate classroom contacts (the so-called bubble), non-bubble school contacts, and household contacts of index pupils. Testing was supported by genome sequencing and on-surface and air samples from school and home environments. FINDINGS: Between October, 2020, and July, 2021 from the eight schools included, secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in 28 bubble contacts, representing ten bubble classes (participation rate 8·8% [IQR 4·6-15·3]). Across eight non-bubble classes, 3 (2%) of 62 pupils tested positive, but these were unrelated to the original index case (participation rate 22·5% [9·7-32·3]). All three were asymptomatic and tested positive in one setting on the same day. In contrast, secondary transmission to previously negative household contacts from infected index pupils was found in six (17%) of 35 household contacts rising to 13 (28%) of 47 household contacts when considering all potential infections in household contacts. Environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 was rare in schools: fomite SARS-CoV-2 was identified in four (2%) of 189 samples in bubble classrooms, two (2%) of 127 samples in non-bubble classrooms, and five (4%) of 130 samples in washrooms. This contrasted with fomites in households, where SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 60 (24%) of 248 bedroom samples, 66 (27%) of 241 communal room samples, and 21 (11%) 188 bathroom samples. Air sampling identified SARS-CoV-2 RNA in just one (2%) of 68 of school air samples, compared with 21 (25%) of 85 air samples taken in homes. INTERPRETATION: There was no evidence of large-scale SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools with precautions in place. Low levels of environmental contamination in schools are consistent with low transmission frequency and suggest adequate cleaning and ventilation in schools during the period of study. The high frequency of secondary transmission in households associated with evident viral shedding throughout the home suggests a need to improve advice to households with infection in children to prevent onward community spread. The data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission from children in any setting is very likely to occur when precautions are reduced. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health and Care Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Child , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Sampling Studies , Prospective Studies , London/epidemiology , RNA, Viral , Schools
2.
Lancet Microbe ; 1(7): e300-e307, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1795951

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Access to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory RT-PCR testing is the current standard of care but usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe our diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care real time RT-PCR CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. METHODS: Between April and May, 2020, we obtained two nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals in three hospitals in London and Oxford (UK). Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred health-care workers with suspected COVID-19; patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19; and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19. For the CovidNudge test, nasopharyngeal swabs were inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as sample adequacy control. Swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge platform, and with standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium for processing in a central laboratory. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care CovidNudge test with laboratory-based testing. FINDINGS: We obtained 386 paired samples: 280 (73%) from self-referred health-care workers, 15 (4%) from patients in the emergency department, and 91 (23%) hospital inpatient admissions. Of the 386 paired samples, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge point-of-care platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the point-of-care test compared with laboratory-based testing was 94% (95% CI 86-98) with an overall specificity of 100% (99-100). The sensitivity of the test varied by group (self-referred healthcare workers 94% [95% CI 85-98]; patients in the emergency department 100% [48-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [29-100]). Specificity was consistent between groups (self-referred health-care workers 100% [95% CI 98-100]; patients in the emergency department 100% [69-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [96-100]). Point of care testing performance was similar during a period of high background prevalence of laboratory positive tests (25% [95% 20-31] in April, 2020) and low prevalence (3% [95% 1-9] in inpatient screening). Amplification of viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, and n3) and envelope protein gene (e-gene) were most sensitive for detection of spiked SARS-CoV-2 RNA. INTERPRETATION: The CovidNudge platform was a sensitive, specific, and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The device, which has been implemented in UK hospitals since May, 2020, could enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programmes. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, and DnaNudge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Point-of-Care Testing , RNA, Viral/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
J Virol Methods ; 294: 114174, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1226316

ABSTRACT

There is growing evidence that measurement of SARS-CoV-2 viral copy number can inform clinical and public health management of SARS-CoV-2 carriers and COVID-19 patients. Here we show that quantification of SARS-CoV-2 is feasible in a clinical setting, using a duplex RT-qPCR assay which targets both the E gene (Charité assay) and a human RNA transcript, RNase P (CDC assay) as an internal sample sufficiency control. Samples in which RNase P is not amplified indicate that sample degradation has occurred, PCR inhibitors are present, RNA extraction has failed or swabbing technique was insufficient. This important internal control reveals that 2.4 % of nasopharyngeal swabs (15/618 samples) are inadequate for SARS-CoV-2 testing which, if not identified, could result in false negative results. We show that our assay is linear across at least 7 logs and is highly reproducible, enabling the conversion of Cq values to viral copy numbers using a standard curve. Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 copy number was independent of the RNase P copy number indicating that the per-swab viral copy number is not dependent on sampling- further allowing comparisons between samples. The ability to quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral copy number will provide an important opportunity for viral burden-guided public health and clinical decision making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Specimen Handling/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Gene Dosage , Genes, Essential , Humans , Limit of Detection , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Reference Standards , Ribonuclease P/genetics , Specimen Handling/methods , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL