Objectives: This study analyzed salivary samples of COVID-19 patients and compared the results with their clinical and laboratory data. Methods: Salivary samples of 25 COVID-19 patients were analyzed by rRT-PCR. The following data were collected: age, sex, comorbidities, drugs. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and ultrasensitive reactive C protein (usRCP) values were registered on the same day when a salivary swab was collected. Prevalence of positivity in saliva and association between clinical data and the cycle threshold as a semiquantitative indicator of viral load were considered. Results: Twenty-five subjects were recruited into this study, 17 males and 8 females. The mean age was 61.5 + / − 11.2 years. Cardiovascular and/or dysmetabolic disorders were observed in 65.22% of cases. All the samples tested positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2, while there was an inverse association between LDH and Ct values. Two patients showed positive salivary results on the same days when their pharyngeal or respiratory swabs showed conversion. Conclusions: Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. The role of saliva in COVID-19 diagnosis could not be limited to a qualitative detection of the virus, but it may also provide information about the clinical evolution of the disease.

Background Although the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine is known to induce IgG neutralizing antibodies in serum protecting against COVID-19, it has not been studied in detail whether it could generate specific immunity at mucosal sites, which represent the primary route of entry of SARS-CoV-2.Methods Samples of serum and saliva of 60 BNT162b2-vaccinated healthcare workers were collected at baseline, two weeks after the first dose and two weeks after the second dose. Anti-S1-protein IgG and IgA total antibodies titres and the presence of neutralizing antibodies against the Receptor Binding Domain in both serum and saliva were measured by quantitative and by competitive ELISA, respectively.Findings Complete vaccination cycle generates a high serum IgG antibody titre as a single dose in previously infected seropositive individuals. Serum IgA concentration reaches a plateau after a single dose in seropositive individuals and two vaccine doses in seronegative subjects. After the second dose IgA level was higher in seronegative than in seropositive subjects. In saliva, IgG level is almost two orders of magnitude lower than in serum, reaching the highest values after the second dose. IgA concentration remains low and increases significantly only in seropositive individuals after the second dose. Neutralizing antibody titres were much higher in serum than in saliva.Interpretation The mRNA BNT162b2 vaccination elicits a strong systemic immune response by drastically boosting neutralizing antibodies development in serum, but not in saliva, indicating that at least oral mucosal immunity is poorly activated by this vaccination protocol, thus failing in limiting virus acquisition upon its entry through this route.

Background The Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic brought significant disruption to in-hospital medical training. Virtual reality simulating the clinical environment has the potential to overcome this issue and can be particularly useful to supplement the traditional in-hospital medical training during the COVID-19 pandemic, when hospital access is banned for medical students. The aim of this study was to assess medical students’ perception on fully online training including simulated clinical scenarios during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods From May to July 2020 when in-hospital training was not possible, 122 students attending the sixth year of the course of Medicine and Surgery underwent online training sessions including an online platform with simulated clinical scenarios (Body Interact™) of 21 patient-based cases. Each session focused on one case, lasted 2 h and was divided into three different parts: introduction, virtual patient-based training, and debriefing. In the same period, adjunctive online training with formal presentation and discussion of clinical cases was also given. At the completion of training, a survey was performed, and students filled in a 12-item anonymous questionnaire on a voluntary basis to rate the training quality. Results were reported as percentages or with numeric ratings from 1 to 4. Due to the study design, no sample size was calculated. Results One hundred and fifteen students (94%) completed the questionnaire: 104 (90%) gave positive evaluation to virtual reality training and 107 (93%) appreciated the format in which online training was structured. The majority of participants considered the platform of virtual reality training realistic for the initial clinical assessment (77%), diagnostic activity (94%), and treatment options (81%). Furthermore, 97 (84%) considered the future use of this virtual reality training useful in addition to the apprenticeship at patient’s bedside. Finally, 32 (28%) participants found the online access difficult due to technical issues. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, online medical training including simulated clinical scenarios avoided training interruption and the majority of participant students gave a positive response on the perceived quality of this training modality. During this time frame, a non-negligible proportion of students experienced difficulties in online access to this virtual reality platform.

No abstract