Abstract
Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) resulted in a worldwide pandemic, due to its great capacity to invade the human body. Previous studies have shown that the primary route of invasion of this virus is the human respiratory tract via the co-expression of ACE2 receptor and TMPRSS2, a serine protease on the cellular surface. Interestingly, this condition is present not only on the respiratory epithelium but on the conjunctival mucosa, as well. Thus, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 is present on the conjunctival mucosa.
Aim
To prove that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the conjunctiva.
Methods
Previously nasopharyngeal swab-sample based real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive COVID-19 infected patients were selected at the COVID Care Centers of Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. The study was approved by the ethical committee of Semmelweis University. During their recovery, both nasopharyngeal and conjunctival swab-samples were taken and PCR method was used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed.
Results
The study population consisted of 97 patients, 49 females (50.5%) and 48 males (49.5%), with a mean age of 67.2 ± 11.9 years. During recovery, with nasopharyngeal swabs, the PCR test was positive in 55 cases (56.70%), whereas with conjunctival swabs it was positive in 8 cases (8.25%). Both tests were positive in 5 cases (5.15%). In some patients, ocular symptoms were observed as well. The rest of the patients (29 cases) had negative nasopharyngeal PCR tests during recovery.
Conclusions
Although only in few cases, the data of the present study provides a proof of concept that SARS-CoV-2 can be present on the conjunctival mucosa even in nasopharyngeal negative patients, a finding, which can have clinical importance. Also, on the basis of these findings one can hypothesize that - in addition to the respiratory tract – the conjunctiva can be an entrance route for SARS-CoV-2 to the human body. Thus, in high-risk conditions, in addition to covering the mouth and nose with mask, the protection of the eyes is also strongly recommended.
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been the greatest worldwide pandemic since the Spanish flu in 1918–1919 [1]. It has greatly impacted the national and global healthcare systems and demanded over 4 million lives out of more than 190 million people infected [2]. The primary entrance location of SARS-CoV-2 infection is in the mucosal cells after being exposed to the virus directly or indirectly and facilitated by the binding of coronavirus spike protein subunit to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor [3–15]. The cellular entry also requires the priming of the protein by a serine protease, TMPRSS2, or other proteases [11, 15]. Thus, the co-expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 on the cellular surface are necessary for the cellular infection, a condition, which is present both on the epithelium of the respiratory tract and the conjunctival mucosa [11, 15].
Pulmonary and extra-pulmonary manifestations
COVID-19 is best known for its respiratory and systematic symptoms that manifest from asymptomatic infection to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [7, 15]. Classical symptoms are fever, cough, fatigue, weakness, loss of olfaction and taste [15, 16]. In addition to the respiratory symptoms, this disease can affect other tissues and organs, such as hematologic-, cardiovascular-, gastrointestinal-, hepatobiliary-, endocrine-, dermatological-, neurological- and ophthalmological systems [15]. This latter one is not always appreciated and sometimes overlooked [17].
Previous ocular findings
As mentioned above, the conjunctival mucosa also can be exposed for SARS-CoV-2 infection, which than can elicit various ocular symptoms. The most common ocular manifestation of COVID-19 is conjunctivitis with epiphora, conjunctival congestion or chemosis, itching, foreign body sensation and/or watery discharge [7–28]. Other pathologies and subjective symptoms as blurred vision, tarsal petechiae, hemorrhage or pseudomembrane, mucous filaments, anterior or posterior uveitis, retinal microangiopathy, microhemorrhages, cotton-wool dots and neuro-ophthalmologic manifestations such as diplopia, ophthalmoparesis and Miller-Fischer syndrome can also frequently occur [7–28]. All of these underlines the importance of extending medical attention and care to the ocular system as well, during COVID-19 infection.
Hypothesis and aim
Because of the aforementioned, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 is present on the conjunctival mucosa and accompanied with ocular syndromes. Thus, we aimed to prove that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the conjunctiva in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 and to identify ocular symptoms. [3, 4, 11–16, 18–21].
Patients and methods
The patients included in the present study provided an informed consent for the investigation, which was approved by the ethical committee of Semmelweis University. Patients had been previously admitted with SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal swab to the COVID Care Centers of Semmelweis University, Budapest. During recovery, the conjunctival swab test was performed within 24 h after the control nasopharyngeal swab. There were 97 patients examined between January and April of 2021.
During recovery, both nasopharyngeal and conjunctival swabs were taken and analyzed with real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in order to show the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the sample (in the Central Laboratory of Department of Laboratory Medicine, Semmelweis University). Conjunctival samples were taken from both eye (inferior conjunctival fornix) with synthetic fiber swabs and placed into the same test tube, meaning that infection on only one eye caused PCR positivity. Vital (body temperature, blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation, the amount of oxygen supplementation, respiratory rate) and laboratory parameters (CRP, PCT, IL-6, ferritin, blood count, renal and liver function, necro-enzymes and D-dimer) as well as symptoms (e.g., presence of fever or cough) were routinely recorded during the admission of the patient.
In some patients in the COVID-19 Centers, ophthalmological history was taken and basic examination was performed.
Statistics
Statistical analysis was performed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). All continuous variables were expressed as mean, median and interquartile ratio (IQR). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess normality. Mann-Whitney test was used for comparison of continuous variables. Categorical variables were summarized as counts (percentages). Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical variables. In all analysis, the level of significance was considered at P < 0.05.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 67.22 ± 11.91 (n = 97) years; 49 (50.52%) of them were females, 48 (49.48%) were males. The anamnestic, vital and laboratory parameters as well as symptoms of patients occurring are included in Table 1.
Anamnestic, vital and laboratory parameters presented in the group of patients, the level of P < 0.05 considered as statistically significant
| Conjunctival swab | Ocular symptoms | |||||
| Parameter | PCR− (n = 89) | PCR+ (n = 8) | P | Absent (n = 91) | Present (n = 6) | P |
| Age (years)* | 67.64 (median 69, IQR 59–78) | 62.50 (median 58.5, IQR 52.5–67.25) | 0.276 | 67.03 (median 68, IQR 55.5–78) | 70.00 (median 71, IQR 63.75–76) | 0.824 |
| Hypertension in anamnesis** | 73.03% | 50.00% | 0.223 | 83.33% | 70.33% | 0.669 |
| Diabetes in anamnesis** | 49.43% | 87.50% | 0.294 | 66.67% | 47.25% | 0.689 |
| Other disease(s) in anamnesis** | 4.49% | 25.00% | 1.000 | 83.33% | 81.32% | 1.000 |
| Ophthalmologic anamnesis** | 15.73% | 12.50% | 1.000 | 50.00% | 13.87% | 0.046 |
| Fever** | 29.07% | 50.00% | 0.246 | 16.67% | 31.82% | 0.662 |
| Cough** | 37.93% | 25.00% | 0.706 | 33.33% | 37.08% | 1.000 |
| Other symptom(s)** | 81.82% | 87.50% | 0.076 | 50.00% | 84.44% | 0.066 |
| Days since the onset of symptom(s)* | 14.80 (median 12, IQR 8–19) | 13.50 (median 12, IQR 9.25–16) | 0.818 | 14.47 (median 12, IQR 8–18) | 18.00 (median 16, IQR 10–26.5) | 0.505 |
| Days since hospitalization* | 8.63 (median 7, IQR 4–11) | 7.00 (median 6.5, IQR 3.25–8.25) | 0.562 | 8.21 (median 7, IQR 4–11) | 11.33 (median 11.5, IQR 4.25–18.75) | 0.537 |
| Body temperature (°C)* | 36.76 (median 36.79, IQR 36.5–37) | 36.61 (median 36.6, IQR 36.3–36.95) | 0.661 | 36.76 (median 36.7, IQR 36.5–37) | 36.56 (median 36.6, IQR 36.6–36.6) | 0.211 |
| Systolic blood pressure (Hgmm)* | 128.10 (median 125, IQR 112–144.5) | 119.16 (median 118.5, IQR 112.25–126.75) | 0.247 | 127.81 (median 125, IQR 110.75–143) | 120.33 (median 117, IQR 113.25–123) | 0.318 |
| Dyastolic blood pressure (Hgmm)* | 77.40 (median 77, IQR 70–84) | 75.88 (median 73.5, IQR 68.5–84.5) | 0.730 | 70.55 (median 77.5, IQR 69.75–84.25) | 73.17 (median 70.5, IQR 68.25–74.25) | 0.275 |
| Pulse (1/min)* | 84.00 (median 82, IQR 71–92.75) | 91.75 (median 89, IQR 86–104.25) | 0.121 | 84.77 (median 83.5, IQR 71–94.25) | 83.00 (median 86, IQR 80–86.75) | 0.932 |
| Oxygen saturation (%)* | 95.06 (median 96, IQR 94–97) | 96.67 (median 69.5, IQR 96–97) | 0.237 | 95.15 (median 96, IQR 94–97) | 95.6 (median 96, IQR 95–98) | 0.696 |
| Oxygen supplementation (l min−1)* | 3.24 (median 0, IQR 0–6) | 1.83 (median 1, IQR 0–2.75) | 0.696 | 3.23 (median 0, IQR 0–6) | 1.6 (median 0, IQR 63, 0–2) | 0.494 |
| Respiratory rate (1/min)* | 19.46 (median 18, IQR 17–20) | 18.43 (median 20, IQR 16.5–20) | 0.722 | 19.35 (median 18, IQR 17–20) | 19.60 (median 18, IQR 18–20) | 0.930 |
| C-reactive protein (mg l−1)* | 86.75 (median 77.7, IQR 29.6–121) | 108.00 (median 95.1, IQR 32.7–173.425) | 0.525 | 89.51 (median 83.7, IQR 29.3–129.75) | 73.32 (median 60.75, IQR 38.725–101.75) | 0.765 |
| Procalcintonine (ug/l) | 0.78 (median 0.09, IQR 0.05–0.245) | 0.42 (median 0.05, IQR 0.025–0.48) | 0.757 | 0.78 (median 0.08, IQR 0.05–0.26) | 0.17 (median 0.1, IQR 0.04–0.16) | 0.948 |
| Interleukin-6 (pg ml−1)* | 78.23 (median 41.62, IQR 14.825–78.025) | 12.65 (median 12.625, IQR 10.3925–14.8975) | 0.123 | 79.62 (median 41.62, IQR 14.545–80.53) | 24.01 (median 18, IQR 13.66–28.35) | 0.255 |
| Ferritine (ug/l)* | 804.54 (median 612.5, IQR 297–993) | 962.67 (median 613.5, IQR 243–1154.25) | 0.970 | 843.35 (median 632, IQR 315–1.104) | 427.60 (median 284, IQR 218–534) | 0.150 |
| Red blood cell count (T l−1)* | 4.29 (median 4.27, IQR 3.86–4.81) | 4.305 ±(median 4.2, IQR 4.125–4.6425) | 0.990 | 4.30 (median 4.23, IQR 3.91–4.82) | 4.20 (median 4.335, IQR 4.08–4.523) | 0.846 |
| White blood cell count (G l−1)* | 7.68 (median 6.55, IQR 4.92–9.32) | 6.78 (median 6.32, IQR 5.0375–7.5375) | 0.591 | 7.85 (median 6.49, IQR 4.905–9.27) | 8.04 (median 7.885, IQR 6.15–10.775) | 0.559 |
| Platelet count (G l−1)* | 246.52 (median 224, IQR 180–288) | 246.75 (median 231.5, IQR 205–259.75) | 0.637 | 246.66 (median 216, IQR 178.5–299.5) | 244.67 (median 236.5, IQR 232–249.25) | 0.393 |
| GFR (mlmin−11.73 m2)* | 66.09 (median 80.5, IQR 45.45–90) | 66.63 (median 82.3, IQR 58.525–90) | 0.973 | 66.52 (median 81.2, IQR 46.2–90) | 60.30 (median 66.5 IQR 44.9–84.425) | 0.397 |
| Carbamide (urea) (mmol l−1)* | 9.58 (median 6.7, IQR 4.9–10.1) | 12.83 (median 5.4, IQR 4–11.25) | 0.376 | 9.59 (median 6.5, IQR 4.85–10.35) | 13.72 (median 7.15, IQR 5.75–8.625) | 0.816 |
| Creatinine (umol/l)* | 128.87 (median 79, IQR 66–114) | 142.75 (median 69, IQR 55.25–135.25) | 0.491 | 128.59 (median 78, IQR 66–111.5) | 151.50 (median 91, IQR 63.25–121) | 0.863 |
| Aspartate aminotransferase (U/l)* | 50.30 (median 41, IQR 26–60) | 48.25 (median 46.5, IQR 32.75–56.5) | 0.673 | 50.51 (median 41, IQR 27–60) | 44.50 (median 40.5, IQR 29.5–46.25) | 0.771 |
| Alanine aminotransferase (U/l)* | 38.76 (median 30, IQR 15.5–45.5) | 39.88 (median 36, IQR 19.75–50.25) | 0.648 | 39.08 (median 30, IQR 16–47) | 35.50 (median 27, IQR 13.75–41) | 0.624 |
| Gamma-glutamil transferase (U/l)* | 81.65 (median 54, IQR 28–91) | 88.50 (median 82, IQR 65.5–99.75) | 0.273 | 84.32 (median 54, IQR 30.5–93) | 52.00 (median 75, IQR 21.75–80.25) | 0.403 |
| Lactate dehydrogenase (U/l)* | 340.18 (median 304, IQR 210.5–387.5) | 341.67 (median 329.5, IQR 225–425) | 0.781 | 340.34 (median 306, IQR 210.5–387.5) | 339.50 (median 321, IQR 229.75–400.25) | 0.756 |
| Creatine kinase (U/l)* | 315.85 (median 125, IQR 48.5–266) | 167.83 (median 124, IQR 71.5–169) | 0.746 | 314.50 (median 103, IQR 49.75–275.25) | 114.75 (median 72.5, IQR 68–119.25) | 0.619 |
| D-dimer (ug/ml)* | 1.70 (median 1.4, IQR 0.6975–2.455) | 0.85 (median 0.65, IQR 0.52–0.83) | 0.121 | 1.62 (median 1.6, IQR 0.89–2.645) | 1.94 (median 1.6, IQR 0.89–2.645) | 0.818 |
* Fischer exact test was performed with categorical parameters.
** Mann-Whitney test was performed with continuous parameters.
The nasopharyngeal swabs resulted in positive PCR test in 55 cases (56.70%), the conjunctival swabs were positive in 8 cases (8.25%), whereas both tests were positive in 5 cases (5.15%). The percentage distribution of the tests is depicted in Fig. 1.
Prevalence of positive and negative nasopharyngeal and conjunctival SARS-CoV-2 PCR results among the 97 patients investigated during recovery
NP: nasopharyngeal test, C: conjunctival test, whereas + and – signs indicate positive or negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, respectively.
Citation: Physiology International 109, 4; 10.1556/2060.2022.00113
In several patients in the COVID-19 Centers, ophthalmologic history was taken and basic examination was performed, the findings are included in Table 2. Six (6.19%) patients presented ocular symptoms, such as foreign body sensation (1 patient), acute glaucoma (1 patient), strabismus (1 patient), exophthalmos (1 patient), ectropium (1 patient) and ocular discharge (2 patients). Two of these patients were positive for conjunctival SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, and both presented ocular discharge; that is, 25% of the patients with positive conjunctival swab had ocular symptoms. Every ocular finding that had not been presented in the anamnesis was considered a symptom. Fifteen patients (15.46%) had ophthalmologic anamnesis, such as glaucoma (1 patient), pseudophakia (6 patients), retinal thrombosis (1 patient), central serous chorioretinopathy (1 patient), diabetic retinopathy (1 patient), endocrine orbitopathy (1 patient), cataract (1 patient), ptosis (1 patient) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD, 1 patient). Of the patients with PCR positive conjunctival swab 12.50% had ocular symptoms and 50.00% of them had ophthalmologic anamnesis (Table 2).
Summary of ocular symptoms and ophthalmologic anamnesis among the 97 patients investigated in COVID Care Centers at Semmelweis University
| Ocular symptoms (6 cases) | Ophthalmologic anamnesis (15 cases) |
|
|
AMD: age-related macular degeneration.
Patients were divided in two groups in two ways: 1) whether they had ocular symptoms revealed during the examination and 2) if their conjunctival swab tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We have found that the only statistically significant difference between the two groups of patients with and without ocular symptoms was the prevalence of ophthalmologic anamnesis, which was significantly higher in patients with ocular symptom(s) (Table 1).
Discussion
The salient finding of the present study is that – although only in few cases – conjunctival tissue sample was positive for COVID-19 in the absence of nasopharyngeal positivity.
During the study of 97 hospitalized elderly patients (∼60 years old) with serious pulmonary and general COVID-19, symptoms were evaluated. Their majority required oxygen supplementation but none of them needed mechanical ventilation. In the present study 41 of all 97 patients required oxygen supplementation (42.3%).
At admission, the routine blood laboratory tests did not show significant difference between patients with or without ocular symptoms (Table 1). Also, there was no statistically significant difference between the vital and laboratory variables in patients with or without positive conjunctival SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result. Samples for PCR tests were taken from the conjunctival epithelium within 24 h after performing the control nasopharyngeal swab tests. Nasopharyngeal tissue sample showed positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result in 55 cases (56.70%), whereas conjunctival swabs were positive in 8 cases (8.25%). The relatively low number of PCR positive nasopharyngeal swabs test is likely due to the fact that many patients were recovering from COVID-19 after 1–3 weeks of admission. Also, it is interesting to note that human conjunctival epithelium contains much less ACE2 receptors compared to the lower respiratory tract [11, 15]. Perhaps because of this reason, conjunctival swab can be PCR negative in spite of being a potential entrance route for SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Although conjunctivitis can be a present in COVID-19, previous findings of Bertoli et al. indicated that the exact incidence of conjunctivitis in COVID-19 patients is unclear, ranging between 0.8% and 31.6% [7]. In 2020, Güemes-Villahoz et al. reported that about 12% of COVID-19 patients presented conjunctivitis symptoms, which were associated with the disease and usually occurred in the early phase of the disease [19]. Moreover, Wu et al. have shown that in 73.7% of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 had positive RT-PCR test for COVID-19 from the nasopharyngeal swabs, and of these, 5.2% of them yielded positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 in their conjunctival as well as nasopharyngeal specimens. A total of 31.6% of their patients had ocular manifestations consistent with conjunctivitis, including conjunctival hyperemia, chemosis, epiphora, or increased secretions. Patients with ocular symptoms were more likely to have higher white blood cell and neutrophil counts and higher levels of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase than patients without ocular symptoms [3]. Feng et al. reported in 2021 that 9.5% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients exhibited ocular signs and symptoms, whereas Chen et al. found that 5.0% of their 535 studied patients presented with conjunctival congestion as the initial COVID-19 symptom [4]. In the present study 8.25% of the hospitalized patients were positive for conjunctival COVID-19 swab PCR test.
On the basis of previous experimental [29, 30] and human [31] studies one can consider a secondary conjunctival infection due to spreading of infection along mucus membranes. Also, human studies have shown that ACE2 and other SARS-CoV-2 co-receptors are expressed in human ocular tissues [31] and that certain diseases can change protein expressions. This may be important, since our study demonstrated that ocular symptoms were present in patients whom had a history of ophthalmologic diseases, which can potentially change the expression of viral receptor proteins [31].
In hospital settings SARS-CoV-2 can be also transmitted by virus carrying stuff or patients derived respiratory droplets [32] reaching the conjunctiva of patients. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected post mortem in conjunctival tissues and intravitreal biopsies [33]. Thus the original entry of virus cannot always be ascertained.
All in all, the previous and present findings suggest that the conjunctiva can be seriously affected by COVID-19, either directly by the virus or indirectly from systemic COVID diseases. Also, due to the special anatomical connection between the conjunctiva and nasal cavities, the ocular surface can be an entry route of nasopharyngeal COVID-19 infection, as the tear film is transported to the inferior nasal meatus by the nasolacrimal duct [8].
Limitation of the study
There are limitations of our pilot study. In the COVID Care Centers of Semmelweis University detailed ophthalmic assessment was not possible due to the personal protective equipment including compulsory face shield. Thus, we focused the investigation on laboratory parameters and the ocular anterior segment symptoms. In addition, we could investigate only limited number of cases, and no technical replicates were done. During the time of our investigation in early 2021, only limited amount of COVID vaccines was available in Hungary, mostly distributed among healthcare workers and elderly patients above the age of 80 years. Thus, the patients included in this study received none or only one dose of one of the COVID vaccines, mostly Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Sinopharm or Sputnik, and because of that we did not record immunization history.
Conclusions
Although only in few cases, the data of the present study provides a proof of concept that SARS-CoV-2 can be present on the conjunctival mucosa even in nasopharyngeal negative patients, a finding, which can have clinical importance. Also, on the basis of this findings one can hypothesize that – in addition to the respiratory tract – the conjunctiva can be an entrance route for SARS-CoV-2 to the human body, which however needs to be substantiated by follow up studies. Nevertheless, in high risk conditions in addition to covering the mouth and nose with mask, the protection of the eyes is also strongly recommended.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by TKP2021-EGA-37 and HAS/MTA Post-Covid 2021–34.
References
- 1.↑
Franchini AF, Auxilia F, Galimberti PM, Piga MA, Castaldi S, Porro A. COVID 19 and Spanish flu pandemics: all it changes, nothing changes. Acta Biomed 2020; 91(2): 245–250. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i2.9625.
- 2.↑
Dong E, Du H, Gardner L. An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20(5): 533–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30120-1.
- 3.↑
Wu P, Duan F, Luo C, Liu Q, Qu X, Liang L, et al. Characteristics of ocular findings of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei Province, China. JAMA Ophthalmol 2020; 138(5): 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1291.
- 4.↑
Chen L, Deng C, Chen X, Zhang X, Chen B, Yu H, et al. Ocular manifestations and clinical characteristics of 535 cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a cross-sectional study. Acta Ophthalmol 2020; 98(8): e951–e959. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14472.
- 5.
Ulhaq ZS, Soraya GV. The prevalence of ophthalmic manifestations in COVID-19 and the diagnostic value of ocular tissue/fluid. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2020; 258(6): 1351–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04695-8.
- 6.
Wise J. Covid-19: new coronavirus variant is identified in UK. BMJ 2020; 371: m4857. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4857.
- 7.↑
Bertoli F, Veritti D, Danese C, Samassa F, Sarao V, Rassu N, et al. Ocular findings in COVID-19 patients: a review of direct manifestations and indirect effects on the eye. J Ophthalmol 2020; 2020: 4827304. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4827304.
- 8.↑
Ho D, Low R, Tong L, Gupta V, Veeraraghavan A, Agrawal R. COVID-19 and the ocular surface: a review of transmission and manifestations. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2020; 28(5): 726–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2020.1772313.
- 9.
Olson DJ, Ghosh A, Zhang AY. Ophthalmic manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 and ocular side effects of investigational pharmacologic agents. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2020; 31(5): 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000682.
- 10.
Hui KPY, Cheung MC, Perera R, Ng KC, Bui CHT, Ho JCW, et al. Tropism, replication competence, and innate immune responses of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in human respiratory tract and conjunctiva: an analysis in ex-vivo and in-vitro cultures. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8(7): 687–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30193-4.
- 11.↑
Bernabei F, Versura P, Rossini G, Re MC. There is a role in detection of SARS-CoV-2 in conjunctiva and tears: a comprehensive review. New Microbiol 2020; 43(4): 149–155.
- 12.
Leonardi A, Rosani U, Brun P. Ocular surface expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2020; 28(5): 735–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2020.1772314.
- 13.
Zhou L, Xu Z, Castiglione GM, Soiberman US, Eberhart CG, Duh EJ. ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are expressed on the human ocular surface, suggesting susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. bioRxiv 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165.
- 14.
Grajewski RS, Rokohl AC, Becker M, Dewald F, Lehmann C, Fatkenheuer G, et al. A missing link between SARS-CoV-2 and the eye?: ACE2 expression on the ocular surface. J Med Virol 2021; 93(1): 78–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26136.
- 15.↑
Gupta A, Madhavan MV, Sehgal K, Nair N, Mahajan S, Sehrawat TS, et al. Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Nat Med 2020; 26(7): 1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0968-3.
- 16.↑
Feng Y, Park J, Zhou Y, Armenti ST, Musch DC, Mian SI. Ocular manifestations of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in a tertiary care academic medical center in the United States: a cross-sectional study. Clin Ophthalmol 2021; 15: 1551–1556. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S301040.
- 17.↑
Nagy ZZ. Ophthalmic signs and complications of the COVID-19 infection. Dev Health Sci 2020; 3: 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1556/2066.2021.40001.
- 18.↑
Arora R, Goel R, Kumar S, Chhabra M, Saxena S, Manchanda V, et al. Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 in tears of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Ophthalmology 2021; 128(4): 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.08.029.
- 19.↑
Guemes-Villahoz N, Burgos-Blasco B, Garcia-Feijoo J, Saenz-Frances F, Arriola-Villalobos P, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, et al. Conjunctivitis in COVID-19 patients: frequency and clinical presentation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2020; 258(11): 2501–2507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04916-0.
- 20.
Nagy ZZ, Gadó K. A COVID-19-járvánnyal kapcsolatos legfontosabb szemészeti teendők az ambuláns és műtéti ellátás területén (The most important things to do during the ophthalmic outpatient and surgical care related to COVID-19 epidemic). Szemészet 2020; 157(3): 182–190.
- 21.
Nagy ZZ. A koronavírus- (COVID-19-) fertőzés szemészeti tüneteiről és a szemészeti teendőkről (About the ophthalmic symptoms and what to do in case of Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection). Orvosképzés 2020; 95(3): 527–531.
- 22.
Deng W, Bao L, Gao H, Xiang Z, Qu Y, Song Z, et al. Ocular conjunctival inoculation of SARS-CoV-2 can cause mild COVID-19 in rhesus macaques. Nat Commun 2020; 11(1): 4400. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18149-6.
- 23.
Xia J, Tong J, Liu M, Shen Y, Guo D. Evaluation of coronavirus in tears and conjunctival secretions of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Med Virol 2020; 92(6): 589-594. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25725.
- 24.
Sun CB, Wang YY, Liu GH, Liu Z. Role of the eye in transmitting human coronavirus: what we know and what we do not know. Front Public Health 2020; 8: 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00155.
- 25.
Guemes–Villahoz N, Burgos-Blasco B, Vidal-Villegas B, Garcia-Feijoo J, Arriola-Villalobos P, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, et al. Novel insights into the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through the ocular surface and its detection in tears and conjunctival secretions: a review. Adv Ther 2020; 37(10): 4086–4095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01442-7.
- 26.
Liu Z, Sun CB. Conjunctiva is not a preferred gateway of entry for SARS-CoV-2 to infect respiratory tract. J Med Virol 2020; 92(9): 1410–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25859.
- 27.
Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, Lalle E, Bordi L, Marsella P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173(3): 242–243. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1176.
- 28.
Colavita F, Curiale S, Lapa D, Castilletti C. Live and replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in ocular fluids. JAMA Ophthalmol 2021; 139(9): 1041. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.2681.
- 29.↑
Shen J, Wu J, Yang Y, Wang P, Luo T, Guo Y, et al. The paradoxical problem with COVID-19 ocular infection: moderate clinical manifestation and potential infection risk. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2021; 19: 1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2021.01.039.
- 30.↑
Yaguchi S, Ogawa Y, Shimmura S, Hatou S, Nakamura S, Inaba T, et al. Presence and physiologic function of the renin-angiotensin system in mouse lacrimal gland. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53(9): 5416–5425. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-9891.
- 31.↑
Martin G, Wolf J, Lapp T, Agostini HT, Schlunck G, Auw-Hadrich C, et al. Viral S protein histochemistry reveals few potential SARS-CoV-2 entry sites in human ocular tissues. Sci Rep 2021; 11(1): 19140. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98709-y.
- 32.↑
Nagy A, Horvath A, Farkas A, Furi P, Erdelyi T, Madas BG, et al. Modeling of nursing care-associated airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a real-world hospital setting. Geroscience 2022; 44(2): 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-021-00512-0.
- 33.↑
Penkava J, Muenchhoff M, Badell I, Osterman A, Delbridge C, Niederbuchner F, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2-RNA in post-mortem samples of human eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2022; 260(5): 1789–1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05529-x.
