Monitoring COVID-19 and Influenza: The Added Value of a Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Surveillance System in Portugal.

Background: Severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) surveillance is recommended to assess the severity of respiratory infections disease. In 2021, the National Institute of Health Doutor Ricardo Jorge, in collaboration with two general hospitals, implemented a SARI sentinel surveillance system based on electronic health registries. We describe its application in the 2021/2022 season and compare the evolution of SARI cases with the COVID-19 and influenza activity in two regions of Portugal. Methods: The main outcome of interest was the weekly incidence of patients hospitalized due to SARI, reported within the surveillance system. SARI cases were defined as patients containing ICD-10 codes for influenza-like illness, cardiovascular diagnosis, respiratory diagnosis, and respiratory infection in their primary admission diagnosis. Independent variables included weekly COVID-19 and influenza incidence in the North and Lisbon and Tagus Valley regions. Pearson and cross-correlations between SARI cases, COVID-19 incidence and influenza incidence were estimated. Results: A high correlation between SARI cases or hospitalizations due to respiratory infection and COVID-19 incidence was obtained (ρ = 0.78 and ρ = 0.82, respectively). SARI cases detected the COVID-19 epidemic peak a week earlier. A weak correlation was observed between SARI and influenza cases (ρ = -0.20). However, if restricted to hospitalizations due to cardiovascular diagnosis, a moderate correlation was observed (ρ = 0.37). Moreover, hospitalizations due to cardiovascular diagnosis detected the increase of influenza epidemic activity a week earlier. Conclusion: In the 2021/2022 season, the Portuguese SARI sentinel surveillance system pilot was able to early detect the COVID-19 epidemic peak and the increase of influenza activity. Although cardiovascular manifestations associated with influenza infection are known, more seasons of surveillance are needed, to confirm the potential use of cardiovascular hospitalizations as an indicator of influenza activity.

Saliva molecular testing bypassing RNA extraction is suitable for monitoring and diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.

BACKGROUND: Adults are being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide, but the longitudinal protection of these vaccines is uncertain, given the ongoing appearance of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Children remain largely unvaccinated and are susceptible to infection, with studies reporting that they actively transmit the virus even when asymptomatic, thus affecting the community. METHODS: We investigated if saliva is an effective sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibodies in children, and associated viral RNA levels to infectivity. For that, we used a saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test, preceded or not by RNA extraction, in 85 children aged 10 years and under, admitted to the hospital regardless of COVID-19 symptomatology. Amongst these, 29 (63.0%) presented at least one COVID-19 symptom, 46 (54.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 28 (32.9%) were under the age of 1, and the mean (SD) age was 3.8 (3.4) years. Saliva samples were collected up to 48 h after a nasopharyngeal swab-RT-qPCR test. RESULTS: In children aged 10 years and under, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of saliva-RT-qPCR tests compared to NP swab-RT-qPCR were, respectively, 84.8% (71.8%-92.4%), 100% (91.0%-100%), and 91.8% (84.0%-96.6%) with RNA extraction, and 81.8% (68.0%-90.5%), 100% (91.0%-100%), and 90.4% (82.1%-95.0%) without RNA extraction. Rescue of infectious particles from saliva was limited to CT values below 26. In addition, we found significant IgM positive responses to SARS-CoV-2 in children positive for SARS-CoV-2 by NP swab and negative by saliva compared to other groups, indicating late infection onset (>7-10 days). CONCLUSIONS: Saliva is a suitable sample type for diagnosing children aged 10 years and under, including infants aged <1 year, even bypassing RNA extraction methods. Importantly, the detected viral RNA levels were significantly above the infectivity threshold in several samples. Further investigation is required to correlate SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels to viral transmission.

Is the efficacy of remdesivir so different from that of lopinavir-ritonavir in severe COVID-19? The answer by real time-PCR: a narrative review.

This letter discusses the efficacy of current antiviral therapy used in severe COVID-19 infection. Since the first severe cases were documented, several antiviral options have been studied as adjuncts to standard supportive care [1, 2]. Firstly, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir resurrected from SARS and MERS outbreaks and soon abandoned after the publication of several trials like the randomized controlled trial RECOVERY, which concluded that it was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death [3]. Remdesivir is currently the only antiviral agent approved for the treatment of COVID-19. It is recommended for use in hospitalized patients who require supplemental oxygen. However, it is not routinely recommended for patients who require mechanical ventilation due to the lack of data showing any benefit at this advanced stage of the disease [4-6].

Long-Term Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in an Immunocompromised Patient with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Recent studies have shown that persistent SARS-CoV-2 infections in immunocompromised patients can trigger the accumulation of an unusual high number of mutations with potential relevance at both biological and epidemiological levels. Here, we report a case of an immunocompromised patient (non-Hodgkin lymphoma patient under immunosuppressive therapy) with a persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection (marked by intermittent positivity) over at least 6 months. Viral genome sequencing was performed at days 1, 164, and 171 to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Among the 15 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (11 leading to amino acid alterations) and 3 deletions accumulated during this long-term infection, four amino acid changes (V3G, S50L, N87S, and A222V) and two deletions (18-30del and 141-144del) occurred in the virus Spike protein. Although no convalescent plasma therapy was administered, some of the detected mutations have been independently reported in other chronically infected individuals, which supports a scenario of convergent adaptive evolution. This study shows that it is of the utmost relevance to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 evolution in immunocompromised individuals, not only to identify novel potentially adaptive mutations, but also to mitigate the risk of introducing "hyper-evolved" variants in the community. IMPORTANCE Tracking the within-patient evolution of SARS-CoV-2 is key to understanding how this pandemic virus shapes its genome toward immune evasion and survival. In the present study, by monitoring a long-term COVID-19 immunocompromised patient, we observed the concurrent emergence of mutations potentially associated with immune evasion and/or enhanced transmission, mostly targeting the SARS-CoV-2 key host-interacting protein and antigen. These findings show that the frequent oscillation in the immune status in immunocompromised individuals can trigger an accelerated virus evolution, thus consolidating this study model as an accelerated pathway to better understand SARS-CoV-2 adaptive traits and anticipate the emergence of variants of concern.

Comparison of nasopharyngeal samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a paediatric cohort.

AIM: The diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) depends on accurate and rapid testing. Choosing an appropriate sample may impact diagnosis. Naso-oropharyngeal swabs (NOS) are most frequently used, despite several limitations. Since studies suggest nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) as a superior alternative in children, we hypothesised collecting both nasopharyngeal swab and aspirate would improve our diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Observational, longitudinal, prospective study from 7 March to 7 May in a tertiary paediatric hospital in Lisbon. The objective was to compare the rate of detection of SARS-CoV-2 between NOS and NPA samples collected simultaneously. RESULTS: A total of 438 samples collected from 85 patients with confirmed COVID-19. There were 47.7% overall positive specimens - 32% (70/219) positive NOS and 63.5% (139/219) positive NPA. The tests were 67.6% concordant (k = 0.45). 50.3% had positive NPA with negative NOS, while 1.3% had positive NOS with negative NPA. NPA proved to be more sensitive (98.6% with 95% confidence interval 91.2-99.9% vs. 49.6% with 95% confidence interval 41.1-58.2%, P < 0.001). Additionally, the difference between NPA and NOS positive samples was statistically significant across all population groups (age, health condition, clinical presentation, contact with COVID-19 patients or need for hospitalisation), meaning NPA is more sensitive overall. CONCLUSIONS: Nasopharyngeal aspirates had greater sensitivity than naso-oropharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Our results suggest paediatric patients would benefit from collecting nasopharyngeal aspirates in hospital settings, whenever feasible, to improve diagnosis of COVID-19.