Search

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic, has rarely been associated with transmission from humans to animals (reverse zoonotic transmission). In this retrospective study, the authors reviewed data obtained from 236 animals, including buffaloes, goats/sheep, horses, carrier pigeons, rabbits, hens, snakes, pigs and cows that were screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection because they had been in contact with their SARS-CoV-2-positive breeder for at least 2 weeks. None of the tested animals were found to be positive. The authors' findings suggest that the risk of reverse zoonotic transmission among bred animals and SARS-CoV-2-positive breeders is very low or nonexistent. Additional studies are warranted., Lay abstract SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic, has rarely been associated with transmission from humans to animals. Here the authors reviewed data regarding molecular test results in a total of 236 animals, which were screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection because they had been in contact with their SARS-CoV-2-positive breeder for at least 2 weeks. None of the tested animals were found to be positive. The authors' findings suggest that the risk that bred animals may be infected by SARS-CoV-2-positive breeders is nonexistent, although additional studies are required to confirm these findings.

The onset of the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus encouraged the development of new serologic tests that could be additional and complementary to real-time RT-PCR-based assays. In such a context, the study of performances of available tests is urgently needed, as their use has just been initiated for seroprevalence assessment. The aim of this study was to compare four chemiluminescence immunoassays and one immunochromatography test for SARS-Cov-2 antibodies for the evaluation of the degree of diffusion of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Salerno Province (Campania Region, Italy). A total of 3,185 specimens from citizens were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as part of a screening program. Four automated immunoassays (Abbott and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG and Roche and Siemens SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgM/IgG/IgA assays) and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA Technogenetics IgG–IgM COVID-19) were used. Seroprevalence in the entire cohort was 2.41, 2.10, 1.82, and 1.85% according to the Liaison IgG, Abbott IgG, Siemens, and Roche total Ig tests, respectively. When we explored the agreement among the rapid tests and the serologic assays, we reported good agreement for Abbott, Siemens, and Roche (Cohen's Kappa coefficient 0.69, 0.67, and 0.67, respectively), whereas we found moderate agreement for Liaison (Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.58). Our study showed that Abbott and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG, Roche and Siemens SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgM/IgG/IgA assays, and LFIA Technogenetics IgG-IgM COVID-19 have good agreement in seroprevalence assessment. In addition, our findings indicate that the prevalence of IgG and total Ig antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at the time of the study was as low as around 3%, likely explaining the amplitude of the current second wave.

The emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 has led to a compelling request for accurate diagnostic tests. The aim of this study was assessing the performance of a real-time RT-qPCR (rt RT-qPCR) assay and of a droplet digital RT-PCR (dd RT-PCR) targeting the nsp14 genome region for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 258 nasopharyngeal swabs were analyzed with the nsp14 assays and, for comparison, with a reference assay targeting the RdRp and E genes. Conflicting results were further investigated by two additional protocols, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) real-time targeting N1/N2, and a nested RT-PCR for the spike region. Agreement of results was achieved on 226 samples (156 positive and 70 negative), 8 samples were positive in the reference assay and in the nsp14 rt RT-qPCR but negative with the dd RT-PCR, and 24 samples provided different combinations of results with the three assays. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95 %C.I.) of the nsp14 assays were: 100.0 % (97.4-100.0), 98.7 % (92.1-100.0), and 99.6 % (97.5-100.0) for the rt RT-qPCR; 92.4 % (87.4-95.6), 100.0 % (94.2-100.0), and 94.7 % (91.1-97.0) for the dd RT-PCR. The results of the study support the use of the nsp14 real-time RT-qPCR and ddPCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs.