ABSTRACT
Aim A simple and reliable method for diagnosing COVID 19 infections is the needed. The role of saliva in the transmission of the infection has already been established. Method Saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs from patients suspected to have COVID 19 infections were taken simultaneously, and the results of the RT-PCR were compared. Result Total 405 samples were collected, of which 250 males and 155 females. In the 391 samples included for analysis, 370 (94.63%) samples were found to have concordance results, and 21 (5.37%) samples had discordant results. Conclusion The use of saliva to diagnose COVID 19 infection is reliable, and its use can be recommended. (AU)
Objetivo Un método simple y confiable para diagnosticar infecciones por COVID 19 es necesario. Ya se ha establecido el papel de la saliva en la transmisión de la infección. Método Se tomaron simultáneamente hisopos de saliva y nasofaríngeos de pacientes con sospecha de infección por COVID 19 y se compararon los resultados de la RT-PCR. Resultado Se recogieron 405 muestras, de las cuales 250 hombres y 155 mujeres. En las 391 muestras incluidas para el análisis, se encontró que 370 (94,63%) muestras tenían resultados de concordancia y 21 (5,37%) muestras tenían resultados discordantes. Conclusión El uso de la saliva para diagnosticar la infección por COVID 19 es confiable y se puede recomendar su uso. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Saliva/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/enzymology , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/enzymology , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/immunologyABSTRACT
AIM: A simple and reliable method for diagnosing COVID 19 infections is the needed. The role of saliva in the transmission of the infection has already been established. METHOD: Saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs from patients suspected to have COVID 19 infections were taken simultaneously, and the results of the RT-PCR were compared. RESULT: Total 405â¯samples were collected, of which 250 males and 155 females. In the 391 samples included for analysis, 370 (94.63%) samples were found to have concordance results, and 21 (5.37%) samples had discordant results. CONCLUSION: The use of saliva to diagnose COVID 19 infection is reliable, and its use can be recommended.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Female , Male , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , Saliva , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Nasopharynx , COVID-19 TestingABSTRACT
Healthcare workers (HCWs) in India received the AZD1222 and BBV152 vaccines from January 2021 onwards. The objective of this study was to compare the immune response (seropositivity rate and geometric mean titer (GMT), and 95% confidence interval (CI)] against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in HCWs who received these vaccines, after the first and second doses. Therefore, the total immunoglobulin (Ig) levels specific to SARS-CoV-2 were measured using quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The study population of 133 HCWs consisted of two groups in which the immune response was measured for the AZD1222 and BBV152 vaccines. Data collection was performed from 6 February to 20 August 2021. Four weeks after the first and second dose, the odds ratio of seroconversion for AZD1222 and BBV152 vaccine was 10.3 times (95% CI: 4.5-23.7) and 15.9 times (95% CI: 6.3-39.9), respectively. The GMT was 6392.93 and 6398.82 U/mL for AZD1222 and 1480.47 and 990.38 U/mL for BBV152 after the first and second doses, respectively. Both vaccines elicited an immune response, but the seroconversion rate and GMT after each dose were significantly higher for AZD1222 than those for the BBV152 vaccine in this study.
ABSTRACT
Context: Repurposed povidone iodine (PVP-I) has been suggested as an effective adjuvant against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the changes in RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values of severe acute respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) genes with PVP-I intranasal and oral application. Settings and Design: A longitudinal (repeated measures) single-arm open-label interventional study was conducted for 200 samples of ten COVID-19 patients in South India. Methods and Material: Demographic and clinical information were collected. Intranasal application and oral gargle with 1% PVP-I solution was done four times a day for seven days. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples were taken for RT-PCR test at hour-0, hour-2, hour-4 on Day-0, Day-3, Day-6, and hour-0 on Day-9. Methods and Material: STATA analysis software version 14.2 was used. McNemar Test was applied for paired samples. Skilling Mack Test was used to assess the association between PVP-I use (intra-day and inter-day) and E gene/N gene Ct values. Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were used for further analyses. Results: Mean (SD) age of the patients was 41.5 (±8.82) years. A total of 100 pairs of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples were analysed. No significant difference was observed in the Ct values of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. E gene Ct values (nasopharyngeal) at Hour-0 increased from Day-0 to Day-9 (P = 0.005). Ct value was higher at Hour-2 for most of the samples. Conclusions: RT-PCR results (qualitative) differed at various testing points in the same patients. Lower Ct values were found in the nasopharyngeal samples. Successive increase in E gene Ct values indicates reduced viral load with natural course of COVID-19. PVP-I may have an optimal impact within 2 h of usage. Clinical trial registration number: CTRI/2020/05/024962.
ABSTRACT
Group A Rotaviruses with serotypes G1-G4 and G9 are the common Rotavirus types of clinical importance. This study aimed at determining the different Rotavirus genotypes in stool sample of children below 5 years. A total of 300 children with acute gastroenteritis were tested for group specific VP6 antigen of group A Rotaviruses by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay. 47 of these samples were positive for Rotavirus antigen. Out of these, 20 positive samples were subjected to Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction for genotyping. The identified genotypes were G9P8, G1P8, G2P4, G9P4 (non-vaccine genotype), G1P6, and G1 (P types not identified in 5 samples).
