Distinguishing SARS-CoV-2 persistence and reinfection: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is poorly understood, partly because few studies have systematically applied genomic analysis to distinguish reinfection from persistent RNA detection related to initial infection. We aimed to evaluate the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and persistent RNA detection using independent genomic, clinical, and laboratory assessments. METHODS: All individuals at a large academic medical center who underwent a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) ≥ 45 days after an initial positive test, with both tests between March 14th and December 30th, 2020, were analyzed for potential reinfection. Inclusion criteria required having ≥2 positive NAATs collected ≥45 days apart with a cycle threshold (Ct) value <35 at repeat testing. For each included subject, likelihood of reinfection was assessed by viral genomic analysis of all available specimens with a Ct value <35, structured Ct trajectory criteria, and case-by-case review by infectious diseases physicians. RESULTS: Among 1,569 individuals with repeat SARS-CoV-2 testing ≥45 days after an initial positive NAAT, 65 (4%) met cohort inclusion criteria. Viral genomic analysis characterized mutations present, and was successful for 14/65 (22%) subjects. Six subjects had genomically-supported reinfection and eight subjects had genomically-supported persistent RNA detection. Compared to viral genomic analysis, clinical and laboratory assessments correctly distinguished reinfection from persistent RNA detection in 12/14 (86%) subjects but missed 2/6 (33%) genomically-supported reinfections. CONCLUSION: Despite good overall concordance with viral genomic analysis, clinical and Ct value-based assessments failed to identify 33% of genomically-supported reinfections. Scaling-up genomic analysis for clinical use would improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections.

Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in Boston highlights the impact of superspreading events.

Analysis of 772 complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomes from early in the Boston-area epidemic revealed numerous introductions of the virus, a small number of which led to most cases. The data revealed two superspreading events. One, in a skilled nursing facility, led to rapid transmission and significant mortality in this vulnerable population but little broader spread, whereas other introductions into the facility had little effect. The second, at an international business conference, produced sustained community transmission and was exported, resulting in extensive regional, national, and international spread. The two events also differed substantially in the genetic variation they generated, suggesting varying transmission dynamics in superspreading events. Our results show how genomic epidemiology can help to understand the link between individual clusters and wider community spread.

Development of a qualitative real-time RT-PCR assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a guide and case study in setting up an emergency-use, laboratory-developed molecular microbiological assay.

Developing and deploying new diagnostic tests are difficult, but the need to do so in response to a rapidly emerging pandemic such as COVID-19 is crucially important. During a pandemic, laboratories play a key role in helping healthcare providers and public health authorities detect active infection, a task most commonly achieved using nucleic acid-based assays. While the landscape of diagnostics is rapidly evolving, PCR remains the gold-standard of nucleic acid-based diagnostic assays, in part due to its reliability, flexibility and wide deployment. To address a critical local shortage of testing capacity persisting during the COVID-19 outbreak, our hospital set up a molecular-based laboratory developed test (LDT) to accurately and safely diagnose SARS-CoV-2. We describe here the process of developing an emergency-use LDT, in the hope that our experience will be useful to other laboratories in future outbreaks and will help to lower barriers to establishing fast and accurate diagnostic testing in crisis conditions.

Prolonged Intubation in Patients With Prior Cerebrovascular Disease and COVID-19.

Objectives: Patients with comorbidities are at increased risk for poor outcomes in COVID-19, yet data on patients with prior neurological disease remains limited. Our objective was to determine the odds of critical illness and duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with prior cerebrovascular disease and COVID-19. Methods: A observational study of 1,128 consecutive adult patients admitted to an academic center in Boston, Massachusetts, and diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We tested the association between prior cerebrovascular disease and critical illness, defined as mechanical ventilation (MV) or death by day 28, using logistic regression with inverse probability weighting of the propensity score. Among intubated patients, we estimated the cumulative incidence of successful extubation without death over 45 days using competing risk analysis. Results: Of the 1,128 adults with COVID-19, 350 (36%) were critically ill by day 28. The median age of patients was 59 years (SD: 18 years) and 640 (57%) were men. As of June 2nd, 2020, 127 (11%) patients had died. A total of 177 patients (16%) had a prior cerebrovascular disease. Prior cerebrovascular disease was significantly associated with critical illness (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.14-2.07), lower rate of successful extubation (cause-specific HR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.33-0.98), and increased duration of intubation (restricted mean time difference = 4.02 days, 95% CI = 0.34-10.92) compared to patients without cerebrovascular disease. Interpretation: Prior cerebrovascular disease adversely affects COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients. Further study is required to determine if this subpopulation requires closer monitoring for disease progression during COVID-19.

Outcomes from an infectious disease physician-guided evaluation of hospitalized persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center.

We describe an approach to the evaluation and isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center. Only a small proportion (2.9%) of PUIs with 1 or more repeated severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) after a negative NAAT were diagnosed with COVID-19.

Clinical, Laboratory, and Radiologic Characteristics of Patients With Initial False-Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Results.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about false-negative (FN) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have prompted recommendations for repeat testing if suspicion for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is moderate to high. However, the frequency of FNs and patient characteristics associated with FNs are poorly understood. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed test results from 15 011 adults who underwent ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 NAATs; 2699 had an initial negative NAAT and repeat testing. We defined FNs as ≥1 negative NAATs followed by a positive NAAT within 14 days during the same episode of illness. We stratified subjects with FNs by duration of symptoms before the initial FN test (≤5 days versus >5 days) and examined their clinical, radiologic, and laboratory characteristics. RESULTS: Sixty of 2699 subjects (2.2%) had a FN result during the study period. The weekly frequency of FNs among subjects with repeat testing peaked at 4.4%, coinciding with peak NAAT positivity (38%). Most subjects with FNs had symptoms (52 of 60; 87%) and chest radiography (19 of 32; 59%) consistent with COVID-19. Of the FN NAATs, 18 of 60 (30%) were performed early (ie, ≤1 day of symptom onset), and 18 of 60 (30%) were performed late (ie, >7 days after symptom onset) in disease. Among 17 subjects with 2 consecutive FNs on NP NAATs, 9 (53%) provided lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens for testing, all of which were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support repeated NAATs among symptomatic patients, particularly during periods of higher COVID-19 incidence. The LRT testing should be prioritized to increase yield among patients with high clinical suspicion for COVID-19.

Clinical Assessment and Validation of a Rapid and Sensitive SARS-CoV-2 Test Using Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Without the Need for RNA Extraction.

BACKGROUND: Amid the enduring pandemic, there is an urgent need for expanded access to rapid, sensitive, and inexpensive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing worldwide without specialized equipment. We developed a simple test that uses colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) to detect severe acute resrpiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 40 minutes from sample collection to result. METHODS: We tested 135 nasopharyngeal specimens from patients evaluated for COVID-19 infection at Massachusetts General Hospital. Specimens were either added directly to RT-LAMP reactions, inactivated by a combined chemical and heat treatment step, or inactivated then purified with a silica particle-based concentration method. Amplification was performed with 2 SARS-CoV-2-specific primer sets and an internal specimen control; the resulting color change was visually interpreted. RESULTS: Direct RT-LAMP testing of unprocessed specimens could only reliably detect samples with abundant SARS-CoV-2 (>3 000 000 copies/mL), with sensitivities of 50% (95% CI, 28%-72%) and 59% (95% CI, 43%-73%) in samples collected in universal transport medium and saline, respectively, compared with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Adding an upfront RNase inactivation step markedly improved the limit of detection to at least 25 000 copies/mL, with 87.5% (95% CI, 72%-95%) sensitivity and 100% specificity (95% CI, 87%-100%). Using both inactivation and purification increased the assay sensitivity by 10-fold, achieving a limit of detection comparable to commercial real-time PCR-based diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS: By incorporating a fast and inexpensive sample preparation step, RT-LAMP accurately detects SARS-CoV-2 with limited equipment for about US$6 per sample, making this a potentially ideal assay to increase testing capacity, especially in resource-limited settings.

Clinical sensitivity and interpretation of PCR and serological COVID-19 diagnostics for patients presenting to the hospital.

The diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%-71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR-positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time-dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.