tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
- Mina Park[SUP]2[/SUP] , Colleen Pawliuk[SUP]3[/SUP] , Tribesty Nguyen[SUP]4[/SUP] , Amanda Griffitt[SUP]3[/SUP] , Linda Dix-Cooper[SUP]1[/SUP] , Nadia Fourik[SUP]1[/SUP] , Martin Dawes[SUP]5[/SUP]
Standard testing for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on RT-PCR tests, but detection of viral genetic material alone does not indicate ongoing infectious potential. The ability to isolate whole virus represents a better proxy for infectivity.
Aim
The objective of this study was to gain an understanding of the current literature and compare the reported periods of positive SARS-CoV-2 detection from studies that conducted RT-PCR testing in addition to experiments isolating whole virus.
Methods
Using a rapid review approach, studies reporting empirical data on the duration of positive RT-PCR results and/or successful viral isolation following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans were identified through searches of peer-reviewed and pre-print health sciences literature. Articles were screened for relevance, then data were extracted, analysed, and synthesised.
Results
Of the 160 studies included for qualitative analysis, 84% (n?=?135) investigated duration of positive RT-PCR tests only, 5% (n?=?8) investigated duration of successful viral isolations, while 11% (n?=?17) included measurements on both. There was significant heterogeneity in reported data. There was a prolonged time to viral clearance when deduced from RT-PCR tests compared with viral isolations (median: 26 vs 9 days).
Discussion
Findings from this review support a minimum 10-day period of isolation but certain cases where virus was isolated after 10 days were identified. Given the extended time to viral clearance from RT-PCR tests, future research should ensure standard reporting of RT-PCR protocols and results to help inform testing policies aimed at clearance from isolation.
full article
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.14.2001506#html_fulltext