Serological and molecular findings during SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first case study in Finland, January to February 2020

Haveri, Anu; Smura, Teemu; Kuivanen, Suvi; Österlund, Pamela; Hepojoki, Jussi; Ikonen, Niina; Pitkäpaasi, Marjaana; Blomqvist, Soile; Rönkkö, Esa; Kantele, Anu; Strandin, Tomas; Kallio‐Kokko, Hannimari; Mannonen, Laura; Lappalainen, Maija; Broas, Markku; Jiang, Miao; Siira, Lotta; Salminen, Mika; Puumalainen, Taneli; Sane, Jussi; Melin, Merit; Vapalahti, Olli; Savolainen-Kopra, Carita

doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.11.2000266

Cited by 277 publications

(320 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

307

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not detect any symptomatic secondary cases of COVID-19 among the 389 non-household contacts who completed active monitoring, including 77 HCP contacts and 67 community contacts from whom respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2. This finding is similar to findings from early contact investigations in Europe and Asia, [13][14][15][16] but in contrast to other data suggesting a much higher secondary attack rate. 17 It is possible that asymptomatic secondary cases could have developed in persons from whom respiratory samples were not collected, 18,19 or that secondary cases could have developed without being detected in respiratory samples (for instance, if the timing of shedding did not align with the timing of sample collection); 11 follow-up serology could help to rule out some of these possibilities.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Enhanced Contact Investigations for Nine Early Travel-Related Cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Burke¹,

Balter

Barnes

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. As part of initial response activities in the United States, enhanced contact investigations were conducted to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Methods Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified. Close contacts meeting criteria for active monitoring were followed, and selected individuals were targeted for collection of additional exposure details and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Results There were 404 close contacts who underwent active monitoring in the response jurisdictions; 338 had at least basic exposure data, of whom 159 had at least 1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all known close contacts under monitoring, two additional cases were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. The secondary attack rate among household members, all of whom had at least 1 respiratory sample tested, was 13% (95% CI: 4 - 38%). Conclusions The enhanced contact tracing investigations undertaken around nine early travel-related cases of COVID-19 in the United States identified two cases of secondary transmission, both spouses. Rapid detection and isolation of the travel-associated case patients, enabled by public awareness of COVID-19 among travelers from China, may have mitigated transmission risk among close contacts of these cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Enhanced Contact Investigations for Nine Early Travel-Related Cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Burke¹,

Balter

Barnes

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, IgG response was detected when this case was isolated in the hospital along with a positive PCR result. Haveri et al [13] reported a patient with mild symptoms seroconverting (IgG) to SARS-CoV-2 in 9 days after onset of symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall specificities were 91.9% and 73.0% for IgG and IgA ELISAs, respectively. Of 39 coronavirus disease patients, 13 were IgG and IgA positive and 11 IgA alone at sampling. IgGs and IgAs were respectively detected at a median of 12 and 11 days after symptom onset.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of commercial and automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs using coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patient samples

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antibody-screening methods to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) need to be validated. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs in conjunction with the EUROLabworkstation (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). Overall specificities were 91.9% and 73.0% for IgG and IgA ELISAs, respectively. Of 39 coronavirus disease patients, 13 were IgG and IgA positive and 11 IgA alone at sampling. IgGs and IgAs were respectively detected at a median of 12 and 11 days after symptom onset.

show abstract

“…The authors demonstrated neutralising antibody response appeared within 9 days, along with specific IgM and IgG response, targeting particularly N and S proteins. 30 In a large study in China, enzyme immune assays, western blots and serum neutralisation assays were used to investigate immune responses to recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (NP) and S protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) in 23 patients. An increase was noted in IgG or IgM antibody levels against NP or RBD for most patients at 10 days or later after symptom onset.…”

Section: Serological Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards effective diagnostic assays for COVID-19: a review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countries globally are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with nearly two million cases and 120 000 deaths occurring within 4 months of the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in December 2019 in China. Accurate diagnoses of cases is key in managing the pandemic by identification, isolation and treatment of patients and defining the epidemiology of the virus. By mid-January 2020, a scientist from China published the full genome of the virus, which facilitated the development of accurate molecular diagnostic assays. By the end of January 2020, the WHO, in collaboration with laboratories in Asia, Europe and the USA, published several real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rtRT-PCR) protocols that allowed identification of cases and development of commercial assays. Clinical investigations facilitated development of accurate case definition and guidance for laboratories on the optimum specimens and procedures for diagnoses. Currently, laboratory-based rtRT-PCR is the recommended test for diagnoses of acute cases to ensure patients can be identified and isolated and to facilitate the public health response. However, due to delays in diagnoses, severe shortage of tests and laboratory capacity, point-of-care molecular or antigen tests are becoming more attractive. Although serological tests are not suitable for diagnoses of acute cases, they are important to define epidemiological questions, including attack rate in the population, and to identify immune individuals. This review aimed to summarise the current available information for diagnoses of cases and to aid laboratories and healthcare workers to select the best assays and procedures.

show abstract

Serological and molecular findings during SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first case study in Finland, January to February 2020

Cited by 277 publications

References 21 publications

Enhanced Contact Investigations for Nine Early Travel-Related Cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Enhanced Contact Investigations for Nine Early Travel-Related Cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States

Evaluation of commercial and automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs using coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patient samples

Towards effective diagnostic assays for COVID-19: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About