Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is crucial to control the COVID-19 pandemic; saliva testing has been proposed as a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. We sought to compare the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva versus nasopharyngeal swab in the pediatric population, and to determine the optimum time of testing for SARS-CoV-2 using saliva. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal diagnostic study in Ottawa, Canada, from Jan. 19 to Mar. 26, 2021. Children aged 3-17 years were eligible if they exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, had been identified as a high-risk or close contact to someone confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had travelled outside Canada in the previous 14 days. Participants provided both nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples. Saliva was collected using a self-collection kit (DNA Genotek, OM-505) or a sponge-based kit (DNA Genotek, ORE-100) if they could not provide a saliva sample into a tube. RESULTS: Among 1580 paired nasopharyngeal and saliva tests, 60 paired samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Forty-four (73.3%) were concordant-positive results and 16 (26.6%) were discordant, among which 8 were positive only on nasopharyngeal swab and 8 were positive only on saliva testing. The sensitivity of saliva was 84.6% (95% confidence interval 71.9%-93.1%). INTERPRETATION: Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is less invasive and shows similar detection of SARS-CoV-2 to nasopharyngeal swabs. It may therefore provide a feasible alternative for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.

National FluWatch mid-season report, 2021–2022: Sporadic influenza activity returns

Surveillance for Canada’s 2021–2022 seasonal influenza epidemic began in epidemiological week 35 (the week starting August 29, 2021) during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global public health emergency. In the 2021–2022 surveillance season to date, there has been a return of persistent sporadic influenza activity, and the first influenza-associated hospitalizations since mid-2020 have been reported. However, as of week 52 (week ending 01/01/2022) activity has remained sporadic, and no influenza-confirmed outbreaks or epidemic activity have been detected. There has been a delay or absence in several traditional seasonal influenza milestones, including the declared start of the influenza season, marked by a threshold of 5% positivity, which historically has occurred on average in week 47. The 429 sporadic detections reported in Canada to date have occurred in 31 regions across seven provinces/territories. Nearly half (n=155/335, 46.3%) of reported cases have been in the paediatric (younger than 19 years) population. Three-quarters of the cases were influenza A detections (n=323/429, 75.3%). Of the subtyped influenza A detections, A(H3N2) predominated (n=83/86, 96.5%). Of the 12 viruses characterized by the National Microbiology Laboratory, 11 were seasonal strains. Among the seasonal strains characterized, only one was antigenically similar to the strains recommended for the 2021–2022 Northern Hemisphere vaccine, though all were sensitive to the antivirals, oseltamivir and zanamivir. Until very recently, seasonal influenza epidemics had not been reported since March 2020. Evidence on the re-emergence of seasonal influenza strains in Canada following the A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic shows that influenza A(H3N2) and B epidemics ceased through the 2009–2010 season and second wave of A(H1N1)pdm09, but then re-emerged in subsequent seasons to predominate causing epidemics of higher intensity than in the pre-pandemic seasons. When and where seasonal influenza epidemic activity resumes cannot be predicted, but model-based estimates and historical post-pandemic patterns of intensified epidemics warrant continued vigilance through the usual season and for out-of-season re-emergence. In addition, ongoing population preparedness measures, such as annual influenza vaccination to mitigate the intensity and burden of future seasonal influenza epidemic waves, should continue.

Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples.

BACKGROUND: Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has become the primary method to diagnose viral diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus; thus, its ability to determine duration of infectivity of patients is limited. Infectivity is a critical determinant in informing public health guidelines/interventions. Our goal was to determine the relationship between E gene SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values from respiratory samples, symptom onset to test (STT), and infectivity in cell culture. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we took SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-confirmed positive samples and determined their ability to infect Vero cell lines. RESULTS: Ninety RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were incubated on Vero cells. Twenty-six samples (28.9%) demonstrated viral growth. Median tissue culture infectious dose/mL was 1780 (interquartile range, 282-8511). There was no growth in samples with a Ct > 24 or STT > 8 days. Multivariate logistic regression using positive viral culture as a binary predictor variable, STT, and Ct demonstrated an odds ratio (OR) for positive viral culture of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], .49-.84; P < .001) for every 1-unit increase in Ct. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for Ct vs positive culture was OR, 0.91 (95% CI, .85-.97; P < .001), with 97% specificity obtained at a Ct of > 24. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 Vero cell infectivity was only observed for RT-PCR Ct < 24 and STT < 8 days. Infectivity of patients with Ct > 24 and duration of symptoms > 8 days may be low. This information can inform public health policy and guide clinical, infection control, and occupational health decisions. Further studies of larger size are needed.

In Vitro Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 Using Gamma Radiation.

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is classified as a Risk Group 3 pathogen; propagative work with this live virus should be conducted in biosafety level-3 (BSL-3) laboratories. However, inactivated virus can be safely handled in BSL-2 laboratories. Gamma irradiation is one of the methods used to inactivate a variety of pathogens including viruses. Objective: To determine the radiation dose required to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 and its effect, if any, on subsequent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Methods: Aliquots of SARS-CoV-2 virus culture were subjected to increasing doses of gamma radiation to determine the proper dose required to inactivate the virus. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) data from irradiated samples was compared with that of the non-irradiated samples to assess the effect of gamma radiation on PCR assay. Results: A radiation dose of 1 Mrad was required to completely inactivate 106.5 TCID50/ml of SARS-CoV-2. The influence of gamma radiation on PCR sensitivity was inversely related and dose-dependent up to 0.5 Mrad with no further reduction thereafter. Conclusion: Gamma irradiation can be used as a reliable method to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 with minimal effect on subsequent PCR assay.

Real-time PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 detection in Canadian laboratories.

With emergence of pandemic COVID-19, rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential. This study compared laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Canadian hospital and public health laboratories, and some commercially available real-time RT-PCR assays. Overall, analytical sensitivities were equivalent between LDTs and most commercially available methods.