During 2015 to 2016, Brazil reported more Zika virus (ZIKV) cases than any other country, yet population exposure remains unknown. Serological studies of ZIKV are hampered by cross-reactive immune responses against heterologous viruses. We conducted serosurveys for ZIKV, dengue virus (DENV), and Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) in 633 individuals prospectively sampled during 2015 to 2016, including microcephaly and non-microcephaly pregnancies, HIV-infected patients, tuberculosis patients, and university staff in Salvador in northeastern Brazil using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and plaque reduction neutralization tests. Sera sampled retrospectively during 2013 to 2015 from 277 HIV-infected patients were used to assess the spread of ZIKV over time. Individuals were georeferenced, and sociodemographic indicators were compared between ZIKV-positive and -negative areas and areas with and without microcephaly cases. Epidemiological key parameters were modeled in a Bayesian framework. ZIKV seroprevalence increased rapidly during 2015 to 2016, reaching 63.3% by 2016 (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.4 to 66.8%), comparable to the seroprevalence of DENV (75.7%; CI, 69.4 to 81.1%) and higher than that of CHIKV (7.4%; CI, 5.6 to 9.8%). Of 19 microcephaly pregnancies, 94.7% showed ZIKV IgG antibodies, compared to 69.3% of 257 non-microcephaly pregnancies (P = 0.017). Analyses of sociodemographic data revealed a higher ZIKV burden in low socioeconomic status (SES) areas. High seroprevalence, combined with case data dynamics allowed estimates of the basic reproduction number R0 of 2.1 (CI, 1.8 to 2.5) at the onset of the outbreak and an effective reproductive number Reff of <1 in subsequent years. Our data corroborate ZIKV-associated congenital disease and an association of low SES and ZIKV infection and suggest that population immunity caused cessation of the outbreak. Similar studies from other areas will be required to determine the fate of the American ZIKV outbreak.

Background Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) of respiratory specimens is the gold standard test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, collecting nasopharyngeal swabs causes discomfort to patients and may represent considerable risk for healthcare workers. The use of saliva as a diagnostic sample has several advantages. Objectives The aim of this study was to validate the use of saliva as a biological sample for diagnosis of COVID-19. Methods This study was conducted at Infectious Diseases Research Laboratory (LAPI), in Salvador, Brazil. Participants presenting with signs/symptoms suggesting SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and/or oropharyngeal swab (OPS), and saliva collection. Saliva samples were diluted in PBS, followed by RNA isolation and RT-Real Time PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Results of conventional vs saliva samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS) version 18.0. Results One hundred fifty-five participants were recruited and samples pairs of NPS/OPS and saliva were collected. The sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR using saliva samples were 94.4% (95% CI 86.4–97.8) and 97.62% (95% CI 91.7–99.3), respectively. There was an overall high agreement (96.1%) between the two tests. Conclusions Use of self-collected saliva samples is an easy, convenient, and low-cost alternative to conventional NP swab-based molecular tests. These results may allow a broader use of molecular tests for management of COVID19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the effect of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate on the salivary load of SARS‐CoV‐2. Materials and Methods A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial was performed on 100 participants positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. In the test group (n = 50), volunteers gargled with a mouthwash containing 15 ml of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate for 1 min, while the control group (n = 50) used a placebo. Saliva samples were obtained before (baseline) and 5 and 60 min after using the solutions. Real‐time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays (qRT‐PCR) were carried out and the cycle threshold (Ct) was computed. The chi‐square test and t‐test were used for group comparison (p ≤ 0.05). Results The differences in Ct values between the 5‐min evaluation and baseline (test group: 2.19 ± 4.30; control: −0.40 ± 3.87, p = 0.002) and between 60 min and baseline (test group: 2.45 ± 3.88; control: 0.76 ± 4.41, p = 0.05) were significantly greater in the test group, revealing a reduction of viral load. Furthermore, there was a reduction in the load of SARS‐CoV‐2 in 72% of the volunteers using chlorhexidine versus 30% in the control group (p = 0.001). Conclusions Chlorhexidine gluconate (0.12%) was effective in reducing salivary SARS‐CoV‐2 load for at least 60 min.

In the pandemic, rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial in controlling the outbreak. Recent studies have shown a high detection rate using saliva/oral fluids as specimens for laboratory detection of the virus. We intended to evaluate the test performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 cartridge assay in comparison to a conventional qRT-PCR testing, using saliva as biological specimen. Forty saliva samples from symptomatic participants were collected. Conventional qRT-PCR was performed for amplification of E and RdRp genes and the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay amplified E and N2 genes. In the conventional assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 34.9, and of the RdRp gene was 38.3. In the Xpert Xpress assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 29.7, and of the N2 gene was 31.6. These results can allow a broaden use of molecular tests for management of COVID-19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.