Bacterial Pneumonia and Respiratory Culture Utilization among Hospitalized Patients with and without COVID-19 in a New York City Hospital.

COVID-19 is associated with prolonged hospitalization and a high risk of intubation, which raises concern for bacterial coinfection and antimicrobial resistance. Previous research has shown a wide range of bacterial pneumonia rates for COVID-19 patients in a variety of clinical and demographic settings, but none have compared hospitalized COVID-19 patients to patients testing negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in similar care settings. We performed a retrospective cohort study on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 testing from March 10th, 2020 to December 31st, 2020. A total of 19,219 patients were included, of which 3,796 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We found a 2.6-fold increase (P < 0.001) in respiratory culture ordering in COVID-19 patients. On a per-patient basis, COVID-19 patients were 1.5-fold more likely than non-COVID patients to have positive respiratory cultures (46.8% versus 30.9%, P < 0.001), which was primarily driven by patients requiring intubation. Among patients with pneumonia, a significantly higher proportion of COVID-19 patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) relative to non-COVID patients (86.3% versus 70.8%, P < 0.001), but a lower proportion had community-acquired (11.2% vs 25.5%, P < 0.01) pneumonia. There was also a significantly higher proportion of respiratory cultures positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and antibiotic-resistant organisms in COVID-19 patients. Increased rates of respiratory culture ordering for COVID-19 patients therefore appear to be clinically justified for patients requiring intubation, but further research is needed to understand how SARS-CoV-2 increases the risk of VAP.

Partial ORF1ab Gene Target Failure with Omicron BA.2.12.1.

Mutations in the genome of SARS-CoV-2 can affect the performance of molecular diagnostic assays. In some cases, such as S-gene target failure, the impact can serve as a unique indicator of a particular SARS-CoV-2 variant and provide a method for rapid detection. Here, we describe partial ORF1ab gene target failure (pOGTF) on the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assays, defined by a ≥2-thermocycle delay in detection of the ORF1ab gene compared to that of the E-gene. We demonstrate that pOGTF is 98.6% sensitive and 99.9% specific for SARS-CoV-2 lineage BA.2.12.1, an emerging variant in the United States with spike L452Q and S704L mutations that may affect transmission, infectivity, and/or immune evasion. Increasing rates of pOGTF closely mirrored rates of BA.2.12.1 sequences uploaded to public databases, and, importantly, increasing local rates of pOGTF also mirrored increasing overall test positivity. Use of pOGTF as a proxy for BA.2.12.1 provides faster tracking of the variant than whole-genome sequencing and can benefit laboratories without sequencing capabilities.

Multicenter Evaluation of the BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples.

As the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) begins to overlap with the traditional respiratory season in the Northern Hemisphere, simultaneous testing for SARS-CoV-2 and the other common causes of respiratory infections is imperative. This has led to the development of multiplex respiratory assays that include SARS-CoV-2 as a target. One such assay is the BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 (RP2.1), which is an expansion of the original BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel 2 (RP2) to include SARS-CoV-2. In this multicenter evaluation, we assessed the performance characteristics of the BioFire RP2.1 for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. One or more targets on the panel were detected in 19.3% (101/524) of specimens tested, with SARS-CoV-2 detected in 12.6% (66/524) of specimens. Human rhinovirus/enterovirus was also detected in 32.7% (33/101) and adenovirus in 3.0% (3/101) of positive specimens, with one dual positive for both SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus being detected. A further breakdown of pathogens by age revealed a 4-fold predominance of human rhinovirus/enterovirus in subjects 0 to 18 years of age, whereas in all other age groups, SARS-CoV-2 was clearly the predominant pathogen. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 results obtained from the BioFire RP2.1 were highly concordant with the composite result, exhibiting 98.4% (61/62) positive percent agreement (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.4 to 99.7%) and 98.9% (457/462) negative percent agreement (95% CI, 97.5 to 99.5%) with further analysis of discordant results suggesting that the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in the specimens was near the limit of detection (LoD) for both the BioFire RP2.1 and the comparator assays. Overall, the BioFire RP2.1 exhibited excellent performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of the Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Influenza A Virus, Influenza B Virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has introduced a new challenge in diagnosing and differentiating respiratory infections. Accurate diagnosis of respiratory infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is complicated by overlapping symptomology, and stepwise approaches to testing for each infection would lead to increased reagent usage and cost, as well as delays in clinical interventions. To avoid these issues, multiplex molecular assays have been developed to differentiate between respiratory viruses in a single test to meet clinical diagnostic needs. To evaluate the analytical performance of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA)-approved Abbott Alinity m resp-4-plex assay (Alinity m) in testing for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), we compared its performance to those of both the EUA-approved Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B virus, and RSV assay (Xpert Xpress) and the EUA-approved Roche Cobas SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B virus assay (Cobas) in a single-center retrospective analysis. High concordance was observed among all three assays, with kappa statistics showing an almost perfect agreement (>0.90). The limit of detection (LOD) results for SARS-CoV-2 showed the Alinity m exhibiting the lowest LOD at 26 copies/mL, followed by the Cobas at 58 copies/mL and the Xpert Xpress at 83 copies/mL, with LOD results for the influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and RSV viral targets also showing equivalent or better performance on the Alinity m compared to the other two platforms. The Alinity m can be used as a high-volume testing platform for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and RSV and exhibits analytical performance comparable to those of both the Xpert Xpress and Cobas assays. IMPORTANCE The rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has introduced a new challenge in diagnosing and differentiating respiratory infections, especially considering the overlapping symptomology of many of these infections and differences in clinical interventions depending on the pathogen identified. To avoid these issues, multiplex molecular assays like the one described in this article need to be developed to differentiate between the most common respiratory pathogens in a single test and most effectively meet clinical diagnostic needs.

Estimating the predictive value of negative severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) results: A prospective study.

We performed a prospective study of 501 patients, regardless of symptoms, admitted to the hospital, to estimate the predictive value of a negative nasopharyngeal swab for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). At a positivity rate of 10.2%, the estimated negative predictive value (NPV) was 97.2% and the NPV rose as prevalence decreased during the study.

3-Dimensional Printed Alternative to the Standard Synthetic Flocked Nasopharyngeal Swabs Used for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Testing.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can be detected in respiratory samples by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or other molecular methods. Accessibility of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 has been limited by intermittent shortages of supplies required for testing, including flocked nasopharyngeal (FLNP) swabs. METHODS: We developed a 3-dimensional printed nasopharyngeal (3DP) swab as a replacement of the FLNP swab. The performance of 3DP and FLNP swabs were compared in a clinical trial of symptomatic patients at 3 clinical sites (n = 291) using 3 SARS-CoV-2 emergency use authorization tests: a modified version of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel and 2 commercial automated formats, Roche Cobas and NeuMoDx. RESULTS: The cycle threshold-C(t)-values from the gene targets and the RNase P gene control in the CDC assay showed no significant differences between swabs for both gene targets (P = .152 and P = .092), with the RNase P target performing significantly better in the 3DP swabs (P < .001). The C(t) values showed no significant differences between swabs for both viral gene targets in the Roche cobas assay (P = .05 and P = .05) as well as the NeuMoDx assay (P = .401 and P = .484). The overall clinical correlation of COVID-19 diagnosis between all methods was 95.88% (Kappa 0.901). CONCLUSIONS: The 3DP swabs were equivalent to standard FLNP in 3 testing platforms for SARS-CoV-2. Given the need for widespread testing, 3DP swabs printed onsite are an alternate to FLNP that can rapidly scale in response to acute needs when supply chain disruptions affect availability of collection kits.

Evaluating the Effect of a Modified Sample Preparation on SARS-CoV-2 Detection in a Cartridge-Based Platform.

INTRODUCTION: The ePlex® SARS-CoV-2 emergency use authorization (EUA) test is a cartridge-based assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal specimens. Since performance data has been previously published on this platform, the manufacturer has modified the workflow design in order to improve assay performance. Evaluation of the new workflow, which eliminated the sample delivery device (SDD), led to a dramatic improvement of assay performance while saving time and making cartridge loading more convenient. METHODS: 145 confirmed positive nasopharyngeal swab specimens were used to evaluate the assay analytical sensitivity, accuracy, and overall time-saving for the 2 workflows that is with and without the use of SDD on the ePlex SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: Elimination of the SDD step led to a dramatic increase in accuracy and the overall limit of detection when using 145 previously defined and valid SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens with relatively low, medium, and high cycle thresholds (CT). This simple workflow change led to an overall detection from 94/145 (64.8%) to 131/145 (90.3%), with an additional 37 specimens being detected. CT value ranges revealed that 90% of the specimens in the 33 ≤ CT < 35.3 CT range were detected, whereas with the SDD workflow, only 30% of positive specimens were detected in this same range. Hands-on time for each specimen also improved and showed overall time savings. CONCLUSION: The simple workflow modification eliminating the SDD led to an overall improvement in the detection of positive specimens and also simplified workflow and reduced hands-on time.

Development of the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 quantitative Laboratory Developed Test and correlation with viral culture as a measure of infectivity.

While diagnosis of COVID-19 relies on qualitative molecular testing for the absence or presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, quantitative viral load determination for SARS-CoV-2 has many potential applications in antiviral therapy and vaccine trials as well as implications for public health and quarantine guidance. To date, no quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral load tests have been authorized for clinical use by the FDA. In this study, we modified the FDA emergency use authorized qualitative RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay into a quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) using newly developed Abbott SARS-CoV-2 calibration standards. Both analytical and clinical performance of this SARS-CoV-2 quantitative LDT was evaluated using nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). We further assessed the correlation between Ct and the ability to culture virus on Vero CCL81 cells. The SARS-CoV-2 quantitative LDT demonstrated high linearity with R2 value of 0.992, high inter- and intra-assay reproducibility across the dynamic range (SDs ± 0.08-0.14 log10 copies/mL for inter-assay reproducibility and ± 0.09 to 0.19 log10 copies/mL for intra-assay reproducibility). Lower limit of detection was determined as 1.90 log10 copies/mL. The highest Ct at which CPE was detected ranged between 28.21-28.49, corresponding to approximately 4.2 log10 copies/mL. Quantitative tests, validated against viral culture capacity, may allow more accurate identification of individuals with and without infectious viral shedding from the respiratory tract.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Test.

With the approach of respiratory virus season in the Northern Hemisphere, clinical microbiology and public health laboratories will need rapid diagnostic assays to distinguish severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections for diagnosis and surveillance. In this study, the clinical performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for nasopharyngeal swab specimens was evaluated in four centers: Johns Hopkins Medical Microbiology Laboratory, Northwell Health Laboratories, NYC Public Health Laboratory, and Los Angeles County/University of Southern California (LAC+USC) Medical Center. A total of 319 nasopharyngeal swab specimens, positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 75), influenza A virus (n = 65), influenza B virus (n = 50), or RSV (n = 38) or negative (n = 91) by the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests at each site, were tested using the Cepheid panel test. The overall positive percent agreement for the SARS-CoV-2 target was 98.7% (n = 74/75), and the negative agreement was 100% (n = 91), with all other analytes showing 100% total agreement (n = 153). Standard-of-care tests to which the Cepheid panel was compared included the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV, GenMark ePlex respiratory panel, BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 and v1.7, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, and Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assays. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test showed high sensitivity and accuracy for all analytes included in the test. This test will provide a valuable clinical diagnostic and public health solution for detecting and differentiating SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B virus, and RSV infections during the current respiratory virus season.

Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now spread across the globe. As part of the worldwide response, many molecular diagnostic platforms have been granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Our objective was to evaluate three sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic platforms (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 [Xpert Xpress], Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 [ID NOW], and GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test [ePlex]) to determine analytical sensitivity, clinical performance, and workflow for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs from 108 symptomatic patients. We found that Xpert Xpress had the lowest limit of detection (100% detection at 100 copies/ml), followed by ePlex (100% detection at 1,000 copies/ml), and ID NOW (20,000 copies/ml). Xpert Xpress also had highest positive percent agreement (PPA) compared to our reference standard (98.3%) followed by ePlex (91.4%) and ID NOW (87.7%). All three assays showed 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). In the workflow analysis, ID NOW produced the lowest time to result per specimen (∼17 min) compared to Xpert Xpress (∼46 min) and ePlex (∼1.5 h), but what ID NOW gained in rapid results, it lost in analytical and clinical performance. ePlex had the longest time to results and showed a slight improvement in PPA over ID NOW. Information about the clinical and analytical performance of these assays, as well as workflow, will be critical in making informed and timely decisions on testing platforms.

Comparison of Four Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Specimens.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel human coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first discovered in December 2019 as the cause of an outbreak of pneumonia in the city of Wuhan, Hubei province, China. The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is fairly nonspecific, and symptoms overlap those of other seasonal respiratory infections concurrently circulating in the population. Furthermore, it is estimated that up to 80% of infected individuals experience mild symptoms or are asymptomatic, confounding efforts to reliably diagnose COVID-19 empirically. To support infection control measures, there is an urgent need for rapid and accurate molecular diagnostics to identify COVID-19-positive patients. In the present study, we evaluated the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance of the following four SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic assays granted emergency use authorization by the FDA using nasopharyngeal swabs from symptomatic patients: the New York SARS-CoV-2 Real-time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panel (modified CDC) assay, the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct (Diasorin Molecular) assay, GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 (GenMark) assay, and the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 (Hologic) assay. This information is crucial for both laboratories and clinical teams as decisions on which testing platform to implement are made.

Development of a New Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR Assay for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Detection.

This research describes the development of a new multiplex real-time RT-PCR test for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with primers designed to amplify a 108 bp target on the spike surface glycoprotein (S gene) and a hydrolysis TaqMan probe designed to specifically detect SARS-CoV-2. The limit of detection (LOD) and clinical performance of this new assay were evaluated. A LOD study with inactivated virus exhibited performance equal to the modified CDC assay, with a final LOD of 1301 ± 13 genome equivalents/mL for the Northwell Health Laboratories laboratory-developed test (NWHL LDT) versus 1249 ± 14 genome equivalents/mL for the modified CDC assay. In addition, a clinical evaluation with 270 nasopharyngeal swab specimens exhibited 98.5% positive percent agreement and 99.3% negative percent agreement compared with the modified CDC assay. The NWHL LDT multiplex design allows testing of 91 patients per plate, versus a maximum of 29 patients per plate on the modified CDC assay, providing the benefit of testing significantly more patients per run and saving reagents, during a time when both of these parameters are critical. The results show that the NWHL LDT multiplex assay performs as well as the modified CDC assay but is more efficient and cost-effective and can be used as a diagnostic assay and for epidemiologic surveillance and clinical management of SARS-CoV-2.

Rapid Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Greater New York Metropolitan Area: Geolocation, Demographics, Positivity Rates, and Hospitalization for 46 793 Persons Tested by Northwell Health.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the greater New York metropolitan area became an epicenter for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The initial evolution of case incidence has not been well characterized. METHODS: Northwell Health Laboratories tested 46 793 persons for SARS-CoV-2 from 4 March through 10 April. The primary outcome measure was a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes included patient age, sex, and race, if stated; dates the specimen was obtained and the test result; clinical practice site sources; geolocation of patient residence; and hospitalization. RESULTS: From 8 March through 10 April, a total of 26 735 of 46 793 persons (57.1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Males of each race were disproportionally more affected than females above age 25, with a progressive male predominance as age increased. Of the positive persons, 7292 were hospitalized directly upon presentation; an additional 882 persons tested positive in an ambulatory setting before subsequent hospitalization, a median of 4.8 days later. Total hospitalization rate was thus 8174 persons (30.6% of positive persons). There was a broad range (>10-fold) in the cumulative number of positive cases across individual zip codes following documented first caseincidence. Test positivity was greater for persons living in zip codes with lower annual household income. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reveal that SARS-CoV-2 incidence emerged rapidly and almost simultaneously across a broad demographic population in the region. These findings support the premise that SARS-CoV-2 infection was widely distributed prior to virus testing availability.

Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 and has quickly become a worldwide pandemic. In response, many diagnostic manufacturers have developed molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway. This study compared three of these assays, the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay (Fusion), the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima), and the BioFire Defense COVID-19 test (BioFire), to determine analytical and clinical performance as well as workflow. All three assays showed similar limits of detection (LODs) using inactivated virus, with 100% detection, ranging from 500 to 1,000 genome equivalents/ml, whereas use of a quantified RNA transcript standard showed the same trend but had values ranging from 62.5 to 125 copies/ml, confirming variability in absolute quantification of reference standards. The clinical correlation found that the Fusion and BioFire assays had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 98.7%, followed by the Aptima assay at 94.7%, compared to the consensus result. All three assays exhibited 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). Analysis of discordant results revealed that all four samples missed by the Aptima assay had cycle threshold (Ct ) values of >37 by the Fusion assay. In conclusion, while all three assays showed similar relative LODs, we showed differences in absolute LODs depending on which standard was employed. In addition, the Fusion and BioFire assays showed better clinical performance, while the Aptima assay showed a modest decrease in overall PPA. These findings should be kept in mind when making platform testing decisions.