Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the general population of Oman: results from four successive nationwide sero-epidemiological surveys.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Oman and longitudinal changes in antibody levels over time within the first 11 months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted as a four-cycle serosurvey using a multi-stage stratified sampling method from July to November 2020. A questionnaire was used and included demographics, history of acute respiratory infection and list of symptoms, COVID-19 contact, previous diagnosis or admission, travel history and risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 17,457 participants were surveyed. Thirty percent were female and 66.3% were Omani. There was a significant increase in seroprevalence throughout the study cycles, from 5.5% (4.8-6.2%) in Cycle 1 to 22% (19.6-24.6%) in Cycle 4. There was no difference in seroprevalence between genders, but significant differences were found between age groups. There was a transition of seroprevalence from being higher in non-Omanis than Omanis in Cycle 1 [9.1% (7.6-10.9%) vs 3.2% (2.6-3.9%)] to being higher in Omanis than non-Omanis in Cycle 4 [24.3% (21.0-27.9%) vs 16.8% (14.9-18.9%)]. There was remarkable variation in the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 according to governorate. Close contacts of people with COVID-19 had a 96% higher risk of having the disease [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.96, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.64-2.34]. Labourers had 58% higher risk of infection compared with office workers (AOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.04-2.35). CONCLUSION: This study showed a wide variation in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 across governorates in Oman, with higher estimated seroprevalence in migrants in the first two cycles. Prevalence estimates remain low and are insufficient to provide herd immunity.

Evaluation of Four Rapid Antigen Tests for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

OBJECTIVES: Considering the increasing, significant burden that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposes on the healthcare system, the need for simple, rapid, and affordable diagnostic tests to support the existing costly and demanding polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay becomes required. This prospective diagnostic test accuracy study aims to evaluate the performance of four different COVID-19 rapid antigen tests compared to real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) between June and July 2020 to determine the feasibility of integrating these tests into the diagnostic algorithm in clinical settings. METHODS: Swabs were collected from 306 patients and analyzed using rRT-PCR and antigen tests from four different providers. RESULTS: The antigen tests' sensitivities were 65.8%, 69.8%, 64.0%, and 64.3% for the STANDARD™ Q COVID-19 Ag test, PCL COVID-19 Ag Rapid fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) test, BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag test, and Sofia SARS-CoV-2 antigen FIA test, respectively. Specificity was 94.1% for PCL COVID-19 Ag Rapid test and 100% for the other three assays. All assays showed a significant negative correlation between the reference rRT-PCR Ct values and Ag test results. Besides, sensitivities of the STANDARD™ Q COVID-19 Ag test, PCL COVID-19 Ag Rapid FIA test, and BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag test improved to ≥ 85% after exclusion of samples with PCR Ct values > 30. CONCLUSIONS: The high specificity of the rapid antigen tests and other parameters like simplicity, rapidity, and affordability suggest that antigen tests are likely to be helpful if integrated and interpreted appropriately in stepwise diagnostic algorithms. Given the low sensitivity of 64.0-69.8% of the antigen tests, we recommend that clinically relevant negative results undergo further testing Ag to confirm or exclude a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Validation of GeneXpert testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in eight hospital laboratories in Oman.

In response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, numerous commercial assays have been developed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 for use in the clinical diagnostic laboratories. To date, there is limited comparison of testing methods performed in different hospital laboratory sites. The aims of the study were to evaluate the analytical performance of Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 when compared to RT-PCR. This is a cross-sectional study. A total of 155 nasopharyngeal swabs were taken in duplicate from patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 to 8 hospitals in Oman. One swab was tested by the hospital laboratory and the duplicate swab was sent to the national Central Public Health Laboratory (CPHL) for testing. We compared the analytical performance of the commercially available point of care Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay which was used in the 8 different hospitals with assays including Liferiver, Sansure, TIB MOL BIOL, Kingfisher and COBAS 6800 by Roche which were performed at the CPHL. Testing of the duplicate swabs revealed excellent agreement of results with the viral loads of Ct values ranging from 16-43 for the E gene, 18-44 for the N gene and 17-44 for the ORF gene using the Liferiver assay. The overall sample sensitivity and specificity of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay were both 100% and there was 100% agreement across specimens. We conclude that the rapid GeneXpert and RT-PCR kits assessed in this study may be used for routine diagnostic testing of COVID-19 patients by experienced clinical microbiology diagnostic laboratories. Our results highlight the importance of rapid molecular testing at different sites within a country in a public health emergency.

The role of supporting services in driving SARS-CoV-2 transmission within healthcare settings: A multicenter seroprevalence study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in healthcare workers (HCWs) based on risk of exposure to COVID-19 patients. METHOD: This was a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence cross-sectional study in risk-stratified HCWs randomly selected from three main district hospitals in Oman. RESULTS: 1078 HCWs were included, with an overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 21%. The seropositivity rates in low-, variable-, and high-risk groups were 29%, 18%, and 17%, respectively (p-value < 0.001). The study found higher positivity in males (crude odds ratio [COR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.3), and workers residing in high-prevalence areas (COR 2.09, 95% CI 1.42-3.07). Compared with doctors, workers from supporting services, administration staff, and nurses were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (COR 9.81, 95% CI 5.26-18.27; 2.37, 95% CI 1.23-4.58; 2.08 95% CI 1.14-3.81). The overall rate of previously undetected infection was 12%, with higher values in low-risk HCWs. High district prevalence was a driving factor for seropositivity in the low-risk group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.36, 95% CI 1.0-5.59). CONCLUSION: Low-risk supporting services workers can drive SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hospitals. More attention and innovation within this area will enhance the safety of health care during epidemics/pandemics.