Helen Horna

Objetivo. Desarrollar y evaluar un método de bajo costo basado en celulosa para la purificación rápida y amplificación directa de ADN de Bordetella pertussis de hisopados nasofaríngeos. Materiales y métodos. Se prepararon discos de celulosa y se evaluaron diferentes parámetros (buffers de lisis/lavado, número de discos y elución de ADN). El método se acopló a una amplificación directa por PCR en tiempo real (qPCR) y se es­timó el rendimiento utilizando hisopados nasofaríngeos que fueron positivos (n=100) y negativos (n=50) para ADN B. pertussis por qPCR, comparado con el método basado en columnas de sílice. Se calculó el grado de concordancia, sensibilidad, especificidad, valor predictivo positivo (VPP) y valor predictivo negativo (VPN). Se evaluó la factibilidad del método rápido para ser acoplado a un ensayo colorimétrico de amplificación isotérmica mediada por lazo (LAMP). Resultados. El método rápido con un disco de celulosa y buffer de lisis y lavado conteniendo PVP-40 y Tween 20, respectivamente, mostró una mayor capacidad para purificar ADN amplificable de B. pertussis. El método tuvo una sensibilidad de 89,0% (IC95%, 80,2%-94,9%) y una especificidad de 98,5% (IC95%, 92,1%-100,0%), con un buen grado de concordancia (Kappa=0,867; IC95% 0,788 – 0,946), respecto al método referencial. Los VPP y VPN fueron 98,6% (IC95%, 92,7,2%-100,0%) y 88,2% (IC95%, 78,7%-94,4%), respectivamente. Se evidenció una amplificación exitosa por LAMP, y se obtuvieron resultados comparables con el método por columnas de sílice. Conclusión. El método desarrollado es simple, de bajo costo y libre de equipos para la obtención rápida (60 segundos) de ADN en el punto de atención, y puede ser implementado en diversas técnicas moleculares orientados al diagnóstico oportuno y al estudio epidemiológico de tos ferina

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the frequency of viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens detected by molecular methods in sputum samples of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to evaluate its impact on mortality and unfavorable outcomes (in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation). Patients and Methods: The prospective cohort included patients with diagnosis of COVID-19 hospitalized at Hospital Nacional Hipólito Unanue. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected from clinical records. Sputum samples were analyzed with the Biofire Filmarray Pneumonia plus^® respiratory panel. Crude and adjusted associations with unfavorable outcomes were evaluated using logistic regression models. Results: Ninety-three patients who were able to collect sputum samples were recruited between September 8 and December 28, 2020. The median age was 61.7 years (IQR 52.3– 69-8) and 66 (71%) were male. The most frequent symptoms were dyspnea, cough, fever, and general malaise found in 80 (86%), 76 (82%), 45 (48%), and 34 (37%) patients, respectively. Fifty-three percent of patients had comorbidities. Seventy-six (82%) patients received antibiotics prior to admission and 29 (31%) developed unfavorable outcome. Coinfection was evidenced in 38 (40.86%) cases. The most frequently found bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Haemophilus influenzae and Klebsiella pneumoniae in 11 (11.83%), 10 (10.75%), 10 (10.75%), and 8 (8.6%) cases, respectively. Streptococcus pneumoniae was found in one case (1.08%). We neither identify atypical bacteria nor influenza virus. No association was found between the presence of viral or bacterial microorganisms and development of unfavorable outcomes (OR 1.63; 95% CI 0.45– 5.82). Conclusion: A high frequency of respiratory pathogens was detected by molecular methods in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia but were not associated with unfavorable outcomes. No atypical agents or influenza virus were found. The high use antibiotics before admission is a concern. Our data suggest that the use of drug therapy against atypical bacteria and viruses would not be justified in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.