• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

PeerJ . Continued nucleic acid tests for SARS-CoV-2 following discharge of patients with COVID-19 in Lu'an, China

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
PeerJ


. 2021 Jun 22;9:e11617.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.11617. eCollection 2021.
Continued nucleic acid tests for SARS-CoV-2 following discharge of patients with COVID-19 in Lu'an, China


Yong Lyu[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Danni Wang[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 2 [/SUP], Xiude Li[SUP] 1 3 [/SUP], Tianqi Gong[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Pengpeng Xu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lei Liu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jie Sun[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Studies have shown that discharged Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have retested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during a follow-up RT-PCR test. We sought to assess the results of continued nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 patients in COVID-19 patients after they were discharged in Lu'an, China.
Methods: We conducted RT-PCR tests on sputum, throat swabs, fecal or anal swabs, and urine samples collected from 67 COVID-19 patients following discharge. Samples were collected on the 7th and 14th days following discharge. Patients testing positive on the 7th or 14th day were retested after 24 hours until they tested negative twice.
Results: Seventeen (17/67, 25.4%) discharged COVID-19 patients had a positive RT-PCR retest for SARS-CoV-2. Among them, 14 (82.4%) were sputum positive, five (29.4%) were throat swab positive, seven (41.2%) were fecal or anal swab positive, one (5.9%) was urine sample positive, five (29.4%) were both sputum and throat swab positive, four (23.5%) were both sputum and fecal test positive, and one (5.9%) was positive of all four specimens. The shortest period of time between discharge and the last positive test was 7 days, the longest was 48 days, and the median was 16 days. The proportion of positive fecal or anal swab tests increased from the third week. The median Cq cut-off values after onset were 26.7 after the first week, 37.7 the second to sixth week, and 40 after the sixth week. There were no significant differences between the RT-PCR retest positive group and the unrecovered positive group.
Conclusions: There was a high proportion of patients who retested positive for COVID-19. Discharge criteria have remained fairly consistent so we encourage regions affected by COVID-19 to appropriately amend their current criteria.

Keywords: COVID-19; Discharge criteria; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom