mteb/CovidQA huggingface dataset:
It is impossible to know what will happen so early in this novel 2019 coronavirus (2019-nCoV) epidemic. The scope, morbidity, and mortality will depend on the combination of severity and transmissibility. Numerous experts have “nowcasted” how many cases have occurred and forecasted how many cases will likely occur. A recent study suggests rapid person to person transmission can occur.8 Disease modelers have estimated R0 to be 2.2.9 The University of Hong Kong estimates the outbreak could infect more than 150 000 persons per day in China at its peak.
Is 2019-nCoV infection severe? To date approximately 14% of cases of 2019-nCoV have been described as severe by WHO, with a case-fatality rate of 2.1%.10 Estimates of severity are usually higher in the beginning of an epidemic due to the identification of the most severely affected cases and decline as the epidemic progresses. However, because many infected persons have not yet recovered and may still die, the case-fatality rate and severity could be underestimated. On January 30, 2020, WHO officially declared the 2019-nCoV epidemic as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, indicating its concern that countries aside from China could be affected by 2019-nCoV.
In preparing for possible sustained transmission of 2019-nCoV beyond China, applicable lessons from previous experiences with epidemics/pandemics of respiratory viruses should be carefully considered to better control and mitigate potential consequences. Influenza preparedness plans have been developed that aim to stop, slow, or limit the spread of an influenza pandemic to the United States. These plans address limiting domestic spread and mitigating disease but also sustaining infrastructure and reducing the adverse effects of the pandemic on the economy and society. These plans would be useful to enact during the 2019-nCoV epidemic should the United States experience sustained transmission. Countries have been successful in the past and there is nothing yet to predict that this time it is likely to be worse. Effective prevention and control will not be easy if there is sustained transmission and will require the full attention of public health, federal and local governments, the
private sector, and every citizen.
Back to topArticle Information
Corresponding Author: David L. Swerdlow, MD, Clinical Epidemiology Lead, Medical Development and Scientific/Clinical Affairs, Pfizer Vaccines, 500 Arcola Rd, Collegeville, PA 19426 (david.swerdlow@pfizer.com).

Published Online: February 11, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1960

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Swerdlow reports owning stock and stock options in Pfizer Inc. Dr Swerdlow also reports providing a one-time consultation consisting of an overview of SARS and MERS epidemiology to GLG Consulting and receiving an honorarium. Dr Finelli reports owning stock in Merck and Co.

Funding/Support: Pfizer Inc provided salary support for Dr Swerdlow.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Pfizer Inc reviewed the manuscript and approved the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
References
1.
Swerdlow  DL, Finelli  L, Bridges  CB.  2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic: field and epidemiologic investigations in the United States at the start of the first pandemic of the 21st century.  Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(suppl 1):S1-S3. doi:10.1093/cid/ciq005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Balcan  D, Hu  H, Goncalves  B,  et al. Seasonal transmission potential and activity peaks of the new influenza A(H1N1): a Monte Carlo likelihood analysis based on human mobility.  BMC Medicine. 2009;7(45). doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-45
3.
Dawood  FS, Iuliano  AD, Reed  C,  et al.  Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modelling study.  Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(9):687-695. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70121-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Chowell  G, Castillo-Chavez  C, Fenimore  PW, Kribs-Zaleta  CM, Arriola  L, Hyman  JM.  Model parameters and outbreak control for SARS.  Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10(7):1258-1263. doi:10.3201/eid1007.030647PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Killerby  ME, Biggs  HM, Midgley  CM, Gerber  SI, Watson  JT.  Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus transmission.  Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(2):191-198. doi:10.3201/eid2602.190697PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Rasmussen  SA, Watson  AK, Swerdlow  DL.  Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).  Microbiol Spectr. 2016;4(3). doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.EI10-0020-2016PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Swerdlow  DL, Pillai  SK, Meltzer  MI, eds.  CDC modeling efforts in response to a potential public health emergency: influenza A(H7N9) as an example.  Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(suppl):S1-S63. https://academic.oup.com/cid/issue/60/suppl_1.Google Scholar
8.
Wang  D, Hu  B, Hu  C,  et al.  Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China.  JAMA. Published online February 7, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1585
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Li  Q, Guan  X, Wu  P,  et al.  Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia.  N Engl J Med. Published online January 29, 2020. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001316PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/. Accessed February 4, 2020.
Comment
2 Comments for this articleEXPAND ALL
February 12, 2020
Understanding R and Disease Control
Oz Mansoor | Public Health Physician, Wellington
The message, that we need to prepare for a pandemic is vital. But the article misreports some key ideas. Firstly, SARS was not controlled "because a high proportion of cases were severe." While that helped , it was because cases were not infectious before some days after symptom onset (usually in the second week of illness). This gave more time for case identification and isolation. And most cases did not pass on infection to anybody, but a few spread to many. When all such individuals were identified and isolated, spread stopped.
Unfortunately, the new virusappears to be spreading from people much earlier in the course of illness, and even with mild symptoms - which was never documented for SARS. However, it is not clear that it is any different or better at spread between people, and perhaps with the same pattern of most cases not causing further spread.

Secondly, the R0, the basic reproduction number, is correctly described as the average number of infections each case causes. But it lacks two key ideas: 1) the 0 after the R implies the native state, which is a fully susceptible population and without any control measures. R is the effectiive number and can include the impact of control measures.

To claim that it was the lack of transmissibility, rather than the control measures that ended SARS, is not based on any evidence. And it ignores the heroic efforts of affected countries.
Elimination of SARS demonstrated the potential of globally coordinated collective action, as well as the damage caused by ignorance and prejudice. Most seem to have already forgotten the lessons of SARS.CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Worked for WHO/WPRO in SARS responseREAD MORE
February 24, 2020
COVID 19: a global presence and not only a new pathogen?
Giuliano Ramadori, Professor of Medicine | University Clinic, Göttingen, Germany
In the winter season there comes the time of upper and lower respiratory tract infections characterised by cough, dyspnea and eventually fever (influenza-like illness).Some of the patients, especially older people living alone affected by the disease ,may need hospitalization and eventually intensive care. In many of the cases who are hospitalized nasal and/or tracheal fluid are examined for viral or bacterial agents. Only in less than 50% of the cases influenza viruses are considered to be the cause of the disease.In the rest of the cases diagnostic procedure for human coronaviruses is not performed routinely. One of the fourdifferent Human Coronaviruses (HuCoV: 229E,NL 63,0C43 and HKU1) can however be found in up to 30% ofpatients negative for influenza viruses (1). Chinese scientists in Wuhan, who had to deal with an increasing number of acute respiratory tract diseases resembling viral pneumonia, performed deep sequencing analysis from samples taken from the lower respiratory
tract and found a "novel" coronavirus. The sequence of the complete genome was made public. At the same time, however, the notice from Wuhan brought to mind the SARS- and MERS-epidemics. The measures taken by the Chinese- and WHO-authorities are now well known.
Recently about 150 new cases have been identified in northern Italy and health authorities are still looking for case 0 (the source). Is it possible that COVID-19 was already existent in Italy -- and not only in Italy but possibly everywhere in the world -- and that newly available nucleotide sequence allows now to find the cause of previously undefined influenza-like illness?

REFERENCE

1. Benezit F et al.:Non-influenza respiratory viruses in adult patients admitted with influenza-like illness:a 3- year prospective multicenter study.Infection, 13 february 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-019-01388-1).CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None ReportedREAD MORE
See More About
Global Health Public Health Pulmonary Medicine Infectious Diseases Influenza
Download PDF
Cite This
PermissionsComment
CME & MOC
 Coronavirus Resource Center
Trending
Opinion is learning has multimedia
US Emergency Legal Responses to Novel Coronavirus—Balancing Public Health and Civil Liberties
March 24, 2020
Opinion is learning has multimedia
2019 Novel Coronavirus—Important Information for Clinicians
March 17, 2020
Research is learning has multimedia
Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Infection Hospitalized in Beijing, China
March 17, 2020
Select Your Interests
JOB LISTINGS ON JAMA CAREER CENTER®
ACADEMIC CARDIOLOGIST: HEART FAILURE SPECIALIST
Phoenix, Arizona
NONINVASIVE CARDIOLOGIST
West Grove, Pennsylvania
CARDIOLOGIST
Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
CARDIAC INTENSIVIST FACULTY
West Reading, Pennsylvania
CLINICAL FACULTY: CARDIOLOGY / ELECTROPHYSIOLOGIST
Phoenix, Arizona
See more at JAMA Career Center
Others Also Liked
Coronavirus Dx Emergency Use Authorizations Progressing Rapidly Despite Criticism
Madeleine Johnson, 360Dx, 2020
Analysis of therapeutic targets for SARS-CoV-2 and discovery of potential drugs by computational methods
Canrong Wu, Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 2020
Commercial Labs Step up Coronavirus Test Efforts After FDA Guidance
360Dx, 2020
Powered by
Trending
US Emergency Legal Responses to Novel Coronavirus—Balancing Public Health and Civil Liberties
JAMA Opinion March 24, 2020
Practical Aspects of Otolaryngologic Clinical Services During the COVID-19 Epidemic
JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery Opinion March 20, 2020
2019 Novel Coronavirus—Important Information for Clinicians
JAMA Opinion March 17, 2020
JAMA
CONTENT
Home New Online Current Issue
JOURNAL INFORMATION
For Authors Editors & Publishers RSS Contact Us
JN Learning / CME Store Apps Jobs Institutions Reprints & Permissions
Journal Cover
Subscribe
Go
JAMA Network
PUBLICATIONS
JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959)
SITES
AMA Manual of Style Art and Images in Psychiatry Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Colorectal Screening Guidelines Declaration of Helsinki Depression Screening Guidelines Evidence-Based Medicine: An Oral History Fishbein Fellowship Genomics and Precision Health Health Disparities Hypertension Guidelines JAMA Network Audio JAMA Network Conferences Machine Learning Med Men Medical Education Opioid Management Guidelines Peer Review Congress Research Ethics Sepsis and Septic Shock Statins and Dyslipidemia Topics and Collections
FEATURED ARTICLES
ACS Breast Cancer Screening Guideline CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids CDC Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infections Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock Global Burden of Cancer, 1990-2016 Global Burden of Disease in Children, 1990-2013 Global Burden of Hypertension, 1990-2015 Global Firearm Mortality, 1990-2016 Health Care Spending in the US and Other High-Income Countries Income and Life Expectancy in the US JNC 8 Guideline for Management of High Blood Pressure President Obama on US Health Care Reform Screening for Colorectal Cancer Screening for Depression in Adults Screening for Prostate Cancer Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease The State of US Health, 1990-2016 US Burden of Cardiovascular Disease, 1990-2016 WMA Declaration of Helsinki, 7th Revision
BLOGS
JAMA Health Forum AMA Style Insider
INFORMATION FOR
Authors Institutions & Librarians Advertisers Subscription Agents Employers & Job Seekers Media
JAMA NETWORK PRODUCTS
AMA Manual of Style JAMAevidence JN Listen Peer Review Congress
JN LEARNING
Home CME Quizzes State CME Audio / Podcast Courses Clinical Challenge CME Atrial Fibrillation Course Marijuana Course Penicillin Allergy Course Cervical Cancer Screening Course CME / MOC Reporting Preferences About CME & MOC
Help
Subscriptions & Renewals Email Subscriptions Update Your Address Contact Us Frequently Asked Questions
JAMA CAREER CENTER
Physician Job Listings
Get the latest from JAMA
Email address
Sign Up
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Jama Network Logo
© 2020 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use| Privacy Policy| Accessibility Statement

Silverchair Logo
Exhaled breath condensate sampling is not a new method for detection of respiratory viruses

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059288/

SHA: f3b46e7e8f58799207cc44515f859c1daf5e4dfc

Authors: Houspie, Lieselot; De Coster, Sarah; Keyaerts, Els; Narongsack, Phouthalack; De Roy, Rikka; Talboom, Ive; Sisk, Maura; Maes, Piet; Verbeeck, Jannick; Van Ranst, Marc
Date: 2011-03-04
DOI: 10.1186/1743-422x-8-98
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) sampling has been considered an inventive and novel method for the isolation of respiratory viruses. METHODS: In our study, 102 volunteers experiencing upper airway infection were recruited over the winter and early spring of 2008/2009 and the first half of the winter of 2009/2010. Ninety-nine EBCs were successfully obtained and screened for 14 commonly circulating respiratory viruses. To investigate the efficiency of virus isolation from EBC, a nasal swab was taken in parallel from a subset of volunteers. The combined use of the ECoVent device with the RTube™ allowed the registration of the exhaled volume and breathing frequency during collection. In this way, the number of exhaled viral particles per liter air or per minute can theoretically be estimated. RESULTS: Viral screening resulted in the detection of 4 different viruses in EBC and/or nasal swabs: Rhinovirus, Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus B, Influenza A and Influenza
B. Rhinovirus was detected in 6 EBCs and 1 EBC was Influenza B positive. We report a viral detection rate of 7% for the EBCs, which is much lower than the detection rate of 46.8% observed using nasal swabs. CONCLUSION: Although very promising, EBC collection using the RTube™ is not reliable for diagnosis of respiratory infections.
Text: Human respiratory tract infections represent the most commonly encountered infections worldwide. In the majority of cases, the etiology of these infections remains undetermined due to rapid convalescence after infection. Respiratory tract infections in healthy adults can be caused by a variety of pathogens and the detection of these agents is currently based on their isolation from nasal swabs (NS), bronchoalveolar lavages (BAL), nasopharyngeal aspirates and sputum samples. The acquisition of these specimens by semi-invasive and invasive techniques is often unpleasant for the patient. Therefore, exhaled breath condensate (EBC) analysis has recently been explored as a new and non-invasive method to monitor lung inflammation and pulmonary disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, cystic fibrosis, lung cancer etc. EBCs mainly consist of water vapour but a small fraction contains respiratory droplets derived from the airway lining fluid [1, 2] . This
observation has created a growing interest in the use of EBC as a new sampling method for the screening of respiratory viruses infecting the upper airways. At first, investigators suspected that turbulence of the inhaled air was responsible for the aerosolisation of the respiratory fluid. However, the effect of the turbulent airflow is limited to the upper airways since the turbulent airflow becomes laminar as it reaches the smaller bronchial airways and alveoli. Recently, the bronchiole fluid film burst model has been described [3] . This model suggests that aerosols are produced during inhalation by the bursting of fluid bubbles present in the bronchioles.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the EBC collection method was suited for the efficient condensation of aerosolised virus particles during normal breathing and to explore the isolation of respiratory viruses in the condensate. Therefore we screened the EBC samples with virus specific PCR assays targeting 14 

In this study, 102 EBCs were collected from otherwise healthy volunteers showing respiratory or flu-like symptoms (defined in Table 1 ), using a commercially available condenser (RTube™, Respiratory Research Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia, USA). The patient was instructed to breath orally at tidal volumes into a mouthpiece attached to a condenser for 10 minutes. No nose clips were used during collection and saliva contamination was avoided by the presence of a one-way valve and the T-shaped section of the mouthpiece.
In a first part of the study that started during the winter and spring of 2008/2009, 70 EBC samples were collected from patients who voluntary presented themselves to our laboratory. The majority of these volunteers were students that responded to the information leaflet, distributed in the university buildings of the Catholic University of Leuven. The samples were collected with the aluminium cooler sleeve chilled at -80°C.
In the fall and first half of the winter of 2009/2010, 32 condensates were collected from patients who presented themselves to their general practitioner. Due to practical circumstances, the condensates were collected with the cooler chilled at -20°C. For 13 out of 32 collections, the RTube™ was connected by a custom made connectingpiece to the ECoVent (Jaeger, Germany). This device registers ventilatory parameters such as the exhaled volume, breathing frequency and tidal volume. Additionally, a NS was obtained in parallel with the condensate collection from each patient.
All EBCs were immediately stored at -20°C. Nasal swabs (NS) were refrigerated. After viral DNA and RNA extraction, EBC samples and nasal swabs were stored at -80°C. Three specimens were excluded from the study due to incorrect condensate collection. A short questionnaire was used to document the date of birth, the severity of respiratory complaints and to record the days of symptomatic illness from all volunteers. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Leuven and informed consents were received from all participants.

Viral DNA and RNA were isolated with the QIAamp MinElute Virus kit (Qiagen, Westburg, The Netherlands) according to the instruction manual. EBC extracts were eluted in 60 μl elution buffer and NS extracts in 110 μl elution buffer.
The breath condensates were screened for 11 respiratory RNA viruses (CoV NL63, E229 and OC43, RV, HMPV, InfA&B and PIV1-4) [4] [5] [6] [7] using a OneStep RT-PCR Kit (Qiagen, Westburg, The Netherlands) in a 50 μl reaction containing 10 μl of the extracted RNA, 0.6 μM of forward and reverse primers (Table 2), 1.5 μl One Step Enzyme Mix, 10 μl 5 × One Step RT-PCR Buffer and 400 μM of each dNTP. For adenovirus screening, a DNA PCR was carried out for which the amplification reaction mix contained 0.5 μM forward primer (AdFW) and reverse primer (AdRV), 0.4 mM dNTPs, 10 μl Buffer C and 1 U Taq polymerase in a final volume of 50 μl. The PCR primers used were located in conserved regions of the genomes of the respiratory pathogens ( Table 2 ). The reactions were carried out in a T3000 Thermocycler 48 (Westburg, Leusden, The Netherlands) with an initial reverse transcription step for RNA viruses at 50°C for 30 min, followed by PCR activation at 95°C for 30 s, 45 cycles of amplification
followed by a final extension step for 10 min at 72°C. The DNA amplification program was initiated with a denaturation step at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 45 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 55°C for 30 s and a final extension step at 72°C for 1 min. The amplicons were subjected to a 6% polyacrylamide gel and visualised under UV light by staining with ethidium bromide. PCR products were purified using the Invitek MSB Spin PCRapace Kit and cycle sequenced in forward and reverse direction using the ABI PRISM Big-Dye Termination Cycle Sequencing Ready Reaction kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Sequence analysis was performed with the ABI3130 Genetic Analyser (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Consensus sequences were obtained using the SeqMan II software (DNASTAR, Madison, Wis.). For samples from HRSV was detected using a RT-PCR assay as previously described [8, 9] . In brief, a multiplex mix was prepared in a final volume of 25 μl using 5 μl extracted RNA, 12.5 μl of
Eurogentec One-Step Reverse Transcriptase qPCR Master Mix containing ROX as a passive reference, 0.125 μl Euroscript + RT & RNase inhibitor (Eurogentec, Seraing, Belgium) 200 nM of HRSV-A and -B specific forward and reverse primers and 100 nM of HRSV-A and -B MGB probes. cRNA standards were constructed using the MEGAshortscript T7 kit (Ambion, Austin, TX, USA) and spectrophotometrically quantified.
The viral load of RV positive samples were quantified by qRT-PCR as described in the manuscript published by Lu and coworkers [10] . The Eurogentec One-Step Reverse Transcriptase qPCR kit was used for preparation of the master mix as described above. The primerset
HRSV-AF F 669-695 ctgtgatagarttccaacaaaagaaca [8, 9] HRSV-AF F 718-745 agttacacctgcattaacactaaattcc [8, 9] HRSV-BN N 435-458 ggctccagaatataggcatgattc [8, 9] HRSV-BN N 480-508 tggttattacaagaagagcagctatacacagt [8, 9] MGB probes and probe, located in 5'UTR, were added to a final concentration of 1 μM and 0.1 μM, respectively. cRNA standards were constructed based on the PCR product of sample 1 using the MegaScript kit (Ambion, Austin, TX, USA). Quantification was performed with a spectrophotometer at 260 nm and converted to the molecule number [11] . Tenfold serial dilutions, allowing detection in a range of 8.6 × 10 6 to 8.6 × 10 2 RNA copies were used. The RT-PCR assays were carried out on a ABI PRISM 7500 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). An initial reverse transcription step was performed at 48°C for 30 min, followed by a denaturation step at 95°C for 10 min. Finally, an amplification step of 45 cycli at 95°C for 15 sec and 1 min at 60°C was
completed. (37.5%) men, with a median age of 29 (range 9 -46 years). Age and gender was missing for 2 participants of the second group. In total, 52% of the participants were between 20-30 years old. Only 6% were younger than 20 years old and 3% were older than 70 years. In totality, 80 patients (78.4%) were already feeling ill for 1 to 7 days at the day the sample was obtained. Seven volunteers (6.8%) were symptomatic for 8 to 14 days and 9 participants (8.8%) were already ill for more than 14 days at the day of sample collection. Data on the duration of symptoms was lacking for 6 patients. Almost all volunteers experienced at least 2 symptoms except for two patients (Table 1) . Forty-seven (46.1%) volunteers complained about a constant runny or stuffy nose, 43 (42.2%) had frequent sneezing events and 38 (37.3%) participants had a serious sore throat (Table 1) .