COVID-19 appears to be infectious only for the first eight days after patients experience symptoms, Winnipeg researchers conclude in a study that, if confirmed by further work, could have implications for the way the disease is treated, isolated and prevented.
In the largest study of its kind so far, researchers from the National Microbiology Laboratory, Cadham Provincial Laboratory and the University of Manitoba looked at nasal or throat samples from 90 Manitobans who tested positive for COVID-19 from March 12 to the first week of April.
All of the samples came from patients who were confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, the most common means of diagnosing the disease around the world.
This type of test extracts a small amount of genetic material and then copies it into quantities that can be more easily identified. The Winnipeg researchers used the same samples to try to grow more of the virus in cell cultures. They succeeded with 26 of the samples, or 29 per cent in total.
There was no viral growth whatsoever in samples taken from patients more than eight days after they became symptomatic, according to study findings published Friday in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.
‘Far less likely’
“We found that [when] they went and got a swab done at Day 8 or beyond, those samples were no longer able to grow in cell culture,” said Cadham Lab associate medical director Jared Bullard, the lead author on the study, in a interview on Monday.
“If you’ve had symptoms for eight days or longer, you’re far less likely to be infectious for other people.”
Viral cultures can take more than a week to grow. That makes them less efficient as a diagnostic tool — but they are better able to predict whether a patient can still infect anyone else, Bullard said.
The Winnipeg study is not the first to conclude COVID-19 is infectious for only eight days after symptoms show up. Bullard said researchers in Germany, working with a smaller sample, reached a similar conclusion in a study published in Nature last month. So did Chinese researchers who employed a mathematical model, he said.
Nonetheless, the larger Winnipeg study allows public-health authorities to be confident in the practice of requiring returning travellers or anyone who may have been exposed to COVID-19 to isolate at home for two weeks, according to the researchers, though the study said larger studies were still needed.
Defining transmission risk
“Isolation of COVID-19 cases in the community is typically recommended for at least 10 days after symptom onset. Our data supports this approach,” the study concludes.
“These results have implications for clinical care, infection prevention and control and public health. These data can be used to efficiently target case-finding efforts by better defining the period of maximal transmission risk.”
The study also found samples appeared to be the most infectious three to five days after patients first experienced COVID-19 symptoms.
Since most patients get tested around Day 6, it becomes relatively easy to target contact-tracing efforts around the most infectious time for any given patient, Bullard said.
“What this was designed to do was to really assist our colleagues in the clinical practice. They were making decisions about when they felt people could be removed from extra precautions,” he said.
‘Shouldn’t be infectious’
“If somebody’s at home in the community, they typically will be at home for 10 days after those symptoms start, and at that point they’re free to go out and they shouldn’t be infectious to other people. We didn’t have the data to support that, and in the hospital we were actually looking at longer.”
Manitoba, for now, has no plans to reduce the isolation period of 14 days for returning travellers, other people at risk or anyone diagnosed with COVID-19.
“More work will be needed to review the results of this study, and any larger studies that are conducted, before any policy changes can be made,” provincial health authorities said in a statement.
Bullard said more study is needed, especially with even larger sample sizes. More research along those lines is being contemplated, he said.
Nonetheless, the Winnipeg study is particularly valuable in Manitoba, because it reflects so many of the initial cases in the province, which has recorded 292 as of May 26.
“What makes it very applicable here in this province is that you have a population that reflects what we’ve got, in terms of the different racial distribution and different ages, and … for us that’s really quite important,” he said.
“It allows us to have the best information possible to make the best decisions.”
View original article here Source