SARS-CoV-2-positive sputum and feces samples in COVID-19 patients
SARS-CoV-2-positive sputum and feces samples in COVID-19 patients. Spencer EA, Heneghan C.
Published on July 15, 2020
Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19
||Chen C, Gao G, Xu Y, et al. SARS-CoV-2-positive sputum and feces after conversion of pharyngeal samples in patients with COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(12):832-834. doi:10.7326/M20-0991 1900
|| This work is funded by Beijing Science and Technology Commission.
This retrospective study of 133 hospitalised COVID-19 patients identified 22 whose sputum or fecal samples tested positive after their pharyngeal swabs became negative.
Records of tests for 133 patients admitted with COVID-19 from 20 January to 27 February 2020 were available. Twenty two of 133 patients (four of whom were children) with an initial or follow-up positive sputum or fecal samples paired with a follow-up negative pharyngeal sample were identified.
What did they do?
This study assessed the results of real-time quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) for SARS–CoV2 RNA of sputum and fecal samples from a group of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, after conversion of their pharyngeal samples from positive to negative.
A convenience sample was retrospectively identified, of patients admitted to Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and paired RT-qPCR testing of pharyngeal swabs with either sputum or feces samples. Among 133 patients admitted with COVID-19 from 20 January to 27 February 2020, 22 patients (4 of whom were children) with an initial or follow-up positive sputum or fecal samples paired with a follow-up negative pharyngeal sample were identified.
From these 22 patients, 545 samples were available, including 209 pharyngeal swabs, 262 sputum samples, and 74 feces samples.
This study is at high risk of bias due to the selection of included data: the study used a convenience sample rather than serial samples being obtained from each patient on a predefined protocol.
|Clearly defined setting
||Demographic characteristics described
||Follow-up length was sufficient
||Transmission outcomes assessed
||Main biases are taken into consideration
What else should I consider?
About the authors