http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/165519/4/L20_2020_Cell_181_905_OA.pdf

Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Engineered Human Tissues Using Clinical-Grade Soluble Human ACE2.

The ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly on a global scale. Although it is clear that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted through human respiratory droplets and direct contact, the potential for aerosol transmission is poorly understood1-3. Here we investigated the aerodynamic nature of SARS-CoV-2 by measuring viral RNA in aerosols in different areas of two Wuhan hospitals during the outbreak of COVID-19 in February and March 2020. The concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in aerosols that was detected in isolation wards and ventilated patient rooms was very low, but it was higher in the toilet areas used by the patients. Levels of airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the most public areas was undetectable, except in two areas that were prone to crowding; this increase was possibly due to individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the crowd. We found that some medical staff areas initially had high concentrations of viral RNA with aerosol size distributions that showed peaks in the submicrometre and/or supermicrometre regions; however, these levels were reduced to undetectable levels after implementation of rigorous sanitization procedures. Although we have not established the infectivity of the virus detected in these hospital areas, we propose that SARS-CoV-2 may have the potential to be transmitted through aerosols. Our results indicate that room ventilation, open space, sanitization of protective apparel, and proper use and disinfection of toilet areas can effectively limit the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in aerosols. Future work should explore the infectivity of aerosolized virus.

/pdf/aerodynamic-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-in-two-wuhan-hospitals-3hjvekq5gr.pdf

Aerodynamic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in two Wuhan hospitals.

Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. Search methods We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. Authors' conclusions The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS‐CoV‐2

The novel SARS-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses a global challenge on healthcare and society. For understanding the susceptibility for SARS-CoV-2 infection, the cell type-specific expression of the host cell surface receptor is necessary. The key protein suggested to be involved in host cell entry is angiotensin I converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Here, we report the expression pattern of ACE2 across > 150 different cell types corresponding to all major human tissues and organs based on stringent immunohistochemical analysis. The results were compared with several datasets both on the mRNA and protein level. ACE2 expression was mainly observed in enterocytes, renal tubules, gallbladder, cardiomyocytes, male reproductive cells, placental trophoblasts, ductal cells, eye, and vasculature. In the respiratory system, the expression was limited, with no or only low expression in a subset of cells in a few individuals, observed by one antibody only. Our data constitute an important resource for further studies on SARS-CoV-2 host cell entry, in order to understand the biology of the disease and to aid in the development of effective treatments to the viral infection.

https://www.embopress.org/doi/pdf/10.15252/msb.20209610

The protein expression profile of ACE2 in human tissues.

The recent emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the ensuing global pandemic has presented a health emergency of unprecedented magnitude Recent clinical data has highlighted that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a significant risk of thrombotic complications ranging from microvascular thrombosis, venous thromboembolic disease, and stroke Importantly, thrombotic complications are markers of severe COVID-19 and are associated with multiorgan failure and increased mortality The evidence to date supports the concept that the thrombotic manifestations of severe COVID-19 are due to the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to invade endothelial cells via ACE-2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2), which is expressed on the endothelial cell surface However, in patients with COVID-19 the subsequent endothelial inflammation, complement activation, thrombin generation, platelet, and leukocyte recruitment, and the initiation of innate and adaptive immune responses culminate in immunothrombosis, ultimately causing (micro)thrombotic complications, such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and stroke Accordingly, the activation of coagulation (eg, as measured with plasma D-dimer) and thrombocytopenia have emerged as prognostic markers in COVID-19 Given thrombotic complications are central determinants of the high mortality rate in COVID-19, strategies to prevent thrombosis are of critical importance Several antithrombotic drugs have been proposed as potential therapies to prevent COVID-19-associated thrombosis, including heparin, FXII inhibitors, fibrinolytic drugs, nafamostat, and dipyridamole, many of which also possess pleiotropic anti-inflammatory or antiviral effects The growing awareness and mechanistic understanding of the prothrombotic state of COVID-19 patients are driving efforts to more stringent diagnostic screening for thrombotic complications and to the early institution of antithrombotic drugs, for both the prevention and therapy of thrombotic complications The shifting paradigm of diagnostic and treatment strategies holds significant promise to reduce the burden of thrombotic complications and ultimately improve the prognosis for patients with COVID-19

The Emerging Threat of (Micro)Thrombosis in COVID-19 and Its Therapeutic Implications.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ribonucleic acid (RNA) in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and correlated positive results with clinical findings. Methods Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were included in this study. Patients' demographic and clinical data were recorded. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT04279782, 19 February, 2020). Results SARS-CoV-2 RNA was present in all four specimen types, though not all specimen types were positive simultaneously. The presence of viral RNA was not necessarily predictive of clinical symptoms, for example, the presence of viral RNA in the urine did not necessarily predict urinary tract symptoms. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 can infect multiple systems, including the urinary tract. Testing different specimen types may be useful for monitoring disease changes and progression, and for establishing a prognosis.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.25936

SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine, blood, anal swabs, and oropharyngeal swabs specimens.

We tested samples collected from nine patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus was found in urine, blood, anal swabs and oropharyngeal swabs. It is the first time for SARS-CoV-2 found in urine, though no urinary irritation was found.

/pdf/2019-novel-coronavirus-can-be-detected-in-urine-blood-anal-za2fow38cz.pdf

2019 Novel Coronavirus can be detected in urine, blood, anal swabs and oropharyngeal swabs samples

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents a continued public health challenge across the world. Veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the U.S. use real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) for animal testing, and many are certified for testing human samples, so ensuring laboratories have sensitive and specific SARS-CoV-2 testing methods is a critical component of the pandemic response. In 2020, the FDA Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN) led the first round of an Inter-Laboratory Comparison (ILC) Exercise to help laboratories evaluate their existing real-time RT-PCR methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The ILC1 results indicated that all participating laboratories were able to detect the viral RNA spiked in buffer and PrimeStore molecular transport medium (MTM). The current ILC (ILC2) aimed to extend ILC1 by evaluating analytical sensitivity and specificity of the methods used by participating laboratories to detect three SARS-CoV-2 variants (B.1, B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and B.1.351 (Beta)). ILC2 samples were prepared with RNA at levels between 10 to 10,000 copies per 50 microliters MTM. Fifty-seven sets of results from 45 laboratories were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed according to the principles of ISO 16140-2:2016. The results showed that over 95% of analysts detected the SARS-CoV-2 RNA in MTM at 500 copies or higher for all three variants. In addition, 81% and 92% of the analysts achieved a Level of Detection (LOD95eff. vol.) below 20 copies in the assays with nucleocapsid markers N1 and N2, respectively. The analytical specificity of the evaluated methods was over 99%. The study allowed participating laboratories to assess their current method performance, identify possible limitations, and recognize method strengths as part of a continuous learning environment to support the critical need for reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 in potentially infected animals and humans.

Second round of the interlaboratory comparison (ILC) exercise of SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection assays being used by 45 veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the US

Keji Deng

Papers

SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine, blood, anal swabs, and oropharyngeal swabs specimens.

2019 Novel Coronavirus can be detected in urine, blood, anal swabs and oropharyngeal swabs samples

Second round of the interlaboratory comparison (ILC) exercise of SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection assays being used by 45 veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the US