Update on Covid-19: vaccines, timing of transplant after COVID-19 infection and use of positive donors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: SARS-CoV-2 resulted in a global pandemic that had a chilling effect on transplantation early in the pandemic and continues to result in significant morbidity and mortality of transplant recipients. Over the past 2.5 years, our understanding of the clinical utility of vaccination and mAbs to prevent COVID-19 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients has been studied. Likewise, approach to donors and candidates with SARS-CoV-2 has been better understood. This review will attempt to summarize our current understanding of these important COVID-19 topics. RECENT FINDINGS: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is effective in reducing the risk of severe disease and death among transplant patients. Unfortunately, humoral and, to a lesser extent, cellular immune response to existing COVID-19 vaccines is reduced in SOT recipients compared with healthy controls. Additional doses of vaccine are required to optimize protection of this population and still may be insufficient in those who are highly immunosuppressed, those receiving belatacept, rituximab and other B-cell active mAbs. Until recently, mAbs were options for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 but are markedly less effective with recent omicron variants. SARS-CoV-2-infected donors can generally be used for nonlung, nonsmall bowel transplants unless they have died of acute severe COVID-19 or COVID-19-associated clotting disorders. SUMMARY: Our transplant recipients require a three-dose mRNA or adenovirus-vector and one dose of mRNA vaccine to be optimally protected initially; they then need to receive a bivalent booster 2+ months after completing their initial series. Most nonlung, nonsmall bowel donors with SARS-CoV-2 can be utilized as organ donors.

Clinical Evaluation of In-House-Produced 3D-Printed Nasopharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19 Testing.

3D-printed alternatives to standard flocked swabs were rapidly developed to provide a response to the unprecedented and sudden need for an exponentially growing amount of diagnostic tools to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the anticipated shortage, a hospital-based 3D-printing platform was implemented in our institution for the production of swabs for nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal sampling based on the freely available, open-source design provided to the community by University of South Florida's Health Radiology and Northwell Health System teams as a replacement for locally used commercial swabs. Validation of our 3D-printed swabs was performed with a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy study of the 3D-printed "Northwell model" with the cobas PCR Media® swab sample kit. We observed an excellent concordance (total agreement 96.8%, Kappa 0.936) in results obtained with the 3D-printed and flocked swabs, indicating that the in-house 3D-printed swab could be used reliably in the context of a shortage of flocked swabs. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report on autonomous hospital-based production and clinical validation of 3D-printed swabs.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection from combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples by a laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR test and the Roche SARS-CoV-2 assay on a cobas 8800 instrument.

OBJECTIVE: Although several assays have been developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical specimens, their relative performance is unknown. METHODS: The concordance between the cobas 8800 SARS-CoV-2 and a laboratory developed (LD) reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay was assessed on 377 combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs in Hanks medium. RESULTS: The positive and negative agreement between these assays were 99.3 % (95 % CI, 97.3-99.9) and 77.1 % (95 % CI, 67.7-84.4), respectively, for an overall agreement of 93.6 % (95 % CI, 90.7-95.7) beyond random chance (kappa of 0.82, 95 % CI, 0.75-0.85). Of the 22 samples positive by cobas SARS-CoV-2 only, 9 were positive only for ORF-1 gene and had Cycle thresholds (Ct) > 35.1, 8 were positive only for the E gene with Ct > 35.5 and 5 were positive for both targets with Ct > 33.9. Samples positive only with the cobas assay were more often positive with only one gene target (77.3 %) than samples positive in both assays (16.9 %, p < 0.0001). Ct values in the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay were significantly higher in the 279 samples testing positive in both assays (32.9 %, 95 % CI 32.3-33.6) compared to the 22 samples with discordant results (36.6 %, 95 % CI 36.2-37.1; p = 0.0009). An excellent correlation (r2 = 0.98) was obtained between Ct values of the ORF-1 and E targets in the cobas assays and a good correlation was obtained between LD RT-PCR test and cobas SARS CoV-2 ORF-1 target (r2 = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated an excellent concordance between a LD RT-PCR and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 tests on the 8800 platform.