Clinical outcomes of patients with and without HIV hospitalized with COVID-19 in England during the early stages of the pandemic: a matched retrospective multi-centre analysis (RECEDE-C19 study).

BACKGROUND: The contribution of HIV to COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized inpatients remains unclear. We conducted a multi-centre, retrospective matched cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive hospital inpatients analysed by HIV status. METHODS: HIV-negative patients were matched to people living with HIV (PLWH) admitted from 1 February 2020 to 31 May 2020 up to a 3:1 ratio by the following: hospital site, SARS-CoV-2 test date ± 7 days, age ± 5 years, gender, and index of multiple deprivation decile ± 1. The primary objective was clinical improvement (two-point improvement or better on a seven-point ordinal scale) or hospital discharge by day 28, whichever was earlier. RESULTS: A total of 68 PLWH and 181 HIV-negative comparators were included. In unadjusted analyses, PLWH had a reduced hazard of achieving clinical improvement or discharge [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.85, p = 0.005], but this association was ameliorated (aHR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.43-1.17, p = 0.18) after additional adjustment for ethnicity, frailty, baseline hypoxaemia, duration of symptoms prior to baseline, body mass index (BMI) categories and comorbidities. Baseline frailty (aHR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, p = 0.011), malignancy (aHR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17, 0.82, p = 0.014) remained associated with poorer outcomes. The PLWH were more likely to be of black, Asian and minority ethnic background (75.0% vs 48.6%, p = 0.0002), higher median clinical frailty score [3 × interquartile range (IQR): 2-5 vs, 2 × IQR: 1-4, p = 0.0069), and to have a non-significantly higher proportion of active malignancy (14.4% vs 9.9%, p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for confounding comorbidities and demographics in a matched cohort ameliorated differences in outcomes of PLWH hospitalized with COVID-19, highlighting the importance of an appropriate comparison group when assessing outcomes of PLWH hospitalized with COVID-19.

Combined epidemiological and genomic analysis of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic and the role of unidentified cases in transmission.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse nosocomial transmission in the early stages of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at a large multisite healthcare institution. Nosocomial incidence is linked with infection control interventions. METHODS: Viral genome sequence and epidemiological data were analysed for 574 consecutive patients, including 86 nosocomial cases, with a positive PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the first 19 days of the pandemic. RESULTS: Forty-four putative transmission clusters were found through epidemiological analysis; these included 234 cases and all 86 nosocomial cases. SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences were obtained from 168/234 (72%) of these cases in epidemiological clusters, including 77/86 nosocomial cases (90%). Only 75/168 (45%) of epidemiologically linked, sequenced cases were not refuted by applying genomic data, creating 14 final clusters accounting for 59/77 sequenced nosocomial cases (77%). Viral haplotypes from these clusters were enriched 1-14x (median 4x) compared to the community. Three factors implicated unidentified cases in transmission: (a) community-onset or indeterminate cases were absent in 7/14 clusters (50%), (b) four clusters (29%) had additional evidence of cryptic transmission, and (c) in three clusters (21%) diagnosis of the earliest case was delayed, which may have facilitated transmission. Nosocomial cases decreased to low levels (0-2 per day) despite continuing high numbers of admissions of community-onset SARS-CoV-2 cases (40-50 per day) and before the impact of introducing universal face masks and banning hospital visitors. CONCLUSION: Genomics was necessary to accurately resolve transmission clusters. Our data support unidentified cases-such as healthcare workers or asymptomatic patients-as important vectors of transmission. Evidence is needed to ascertain whether routine screening increases case ascertainment and limits nosocomial transmission.

Comparative performance of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen tests and association with detection of infectious virus in clinical specimens: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Lateral flow devices (LFDs) for rapid antigen testing are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing, although their reduced sensitivity compared with PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is, therefore, essential for successful implementation. We evaluated six commercial LFDs and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. METHODS: In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we did a head-to-head comparison of six LFDs commercially available in the UK: Innova Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test, Spring Healthcare SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette, E25Bio Rapid Diagnostic Test, Encode SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Device, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Cassette, and SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Fluorescence Antigen Test. We estimated the specificities and sensitivities of the LFDs using stored naso-oropharyngeal swabs collected at St Thomas' Hospital (London, UK) for routine diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing by real-time RT-PCR (RT-rtPCR). Swabs were from inpatients and outpatients from all departments of St Thomas' Hospital, and from health-care staff (all departments) and their household contacts. SARS-CoV-2-negative swabs from the same population (confirmed by RT-rtPCR) were used for comparative specificity determinations. All samples were collected between March 23 and Oct 27, 2020. We determined the limit of detection (LOD) for each test using viral plaque-forming units (PFUs) and viral RNA copy numbers of laboratory-grown SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, LFDs were selected to assess the correlation of antigen test result with RT-rtPCR Ct values and positive viral culture in Vero E6 cells. This analysis included longitudinal swabs from five infected inpatients with varying disease severities. Furthermore, the sensitivities of available LFDs were assessed in swabs (n=23; collected from Dec 4, 2020, to Jan 12, 2021) confirmed to be positive (RT-rtPCR and whole-genome sequencing) for the B.1.1.7 variant, which was the dominant genotype in the UK at the time of study completion. FINDINGS: All LFDs showed high specificity (≥98·0%), except for the E25Bio test (86·0% [95% CI 77·9-99·9]), and most tests reliably detected 50 PFU/test (equivalent SARS-CoV-2 N gene Ct value of 23·7, or RNA copy number of 3 × 106/mL). Sensitivities of the LFDs on clinical samples ranged from 65·0% (55·2-73·6) to 89·0% (81·4-93·8). These sensitivities increased to greater than 90% for samples with Ct values of lower than 25 for all tests except the SureScreen fluorescence (SureScreen-F) test. Positive virus culture was identified in 57 (40·4%) of 141 samples; 54 (94·7%) of the positive cultures were from swabs with Ct values lower than 25. Among the three LFDs selected for detailed comparisons (the tests with highest sensitivity [Innova], highest specificity [Encode], and alternative technology [SureScreen-F]), sensitivity of the LFDs increased to at least 94·7% when only including samples with detected viral growth. Longitudinal studies of RT-rtPCR-positive samples (tested with Innova, Encode, and both SureScreen-F and the SureScreen visual [SureScreen-V] test) showed that most of the tests identified all infectious samples as positive. Test performance (assessed for Innova and SureScreen-V) was not affected when reassessed on swabs positive for the UK variant B.1.1.7. INTERPRETATION: In this comprehensive comparison of antigen LFDs and virus infectivity, we found a clear relationship between Ct values, quantitative culture of infectious virus, and antigen LFD positivity in clinical samples. Our data support regular testing of target groups with LFDs to supplement the current PCR testing capacity, which would help to rapidly identify infected individuals in situations in which they would otherwise go undetected. FUNDING: King's Together Rapid COVID-19, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Huo Family Foundation, UK Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre.

Clinical utility of targeted SARS-CoV-2 serology testing to aid the diagnosis and management of suspected missed, late or post-COVID-19 infection syndromes: Results from a pilot service implemented during the first pandemic wave.

During the first wave of the global COVID-19 pandemic the clinical utility and indications for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing were not clearly defined. The urgency to deploy serological assays required rapid evaluation of their performance characteristics. We undertook an internal validation of a CE marked lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) (SureScreen Diagnostics) using serum from SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive individuals and pre-pandemic samples. This was followed by the delivery of a same-day named patient SARS-CoV-2 serology service using LFIA on vetted referrals at central London teaching hospital with clinical interpretation of result provided to the direct care team. Assay performance, source and nature of referrals, feasibility and clinical utility of the service, particularly benefit in clinical decision-making, were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity of LFIA were 96.1% and 99.3% respectively. 113 tests were performed on 108 participants during three-week pilot. 44% participants (n = 48) had detectable antibodies. Three main indications were identified for serological testing; new acute presentations potentially triggered by recent COVID-19 e.g. pulmonary embolism (n = 5), potential missed diagnoses in context of a recent COVID-19 compatible illness (n = 40), and making infection control or immunosuppression management decisions in persistently SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR positive individuals (n = 6). We demonstrate acceptable performance characteristics, feasibility and clinical utility of using a LFIA that detects anti-spike antibodies to deliver SARS-CoV-2 serology service in adults and children. Greatest benefit was seen where there is reasonable pre-test probability and results can be linked with clinical advice or intervention. Experience from this pilot can help inform practicalities and benefits of rapidly implementing new tests such as LFIAs into clinical service as the pandemic evolves.

Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans.

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in most infected individuals 10-15 d after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. However, due to the recent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in the human population, it is not known how long antibody responses will be maintained or whether they will provide protection from reinfection. Using sequential serum samples collected up to 94 d post onset of symptoms (POS) from 65 individuals with real-time quantitative PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we show seroconversion (immunoglobulin (Ig)M, IgA, IgG) in >95% of cases and neutralizing antibody responses when sampled beyond 8 d POS. We show that the kinetics of the neutralizing antibody response is typical of an acute viral infection, with declining neutralizing antibody titres observed after an initial peak, and that the magnitude of this peak is dependent on disease severity. Although some individuals with high peak infective dose (ID50 > 10,000) maintained neutralizing antibody titres >1,000 at >60 d POS, some with lower peak ID50 had neutralizing antibody titres approaching baseline within the follow-up period. A similar decline in neutralizing antibody titres was observed in a cohort of 31 seropositive healthcare workers. The present study has important implications when considering widespread serological testing and antibody protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2, and may suggest that vaccine boosters are required to provide long-lasting protection.

Detecting SARS-CoV-2 at point of care: preliminary data comparing loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) to polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

BACKGROUND: A cost effective and efficient diagnostic tool for COVID-19 as near to the point of care (PoC) as possible would be a game changer in the current pandemic. We tested reverse transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), a method which can produce results in under 30 min, alongside standard methods in a real-life clinical setting. METHODS: This prospective service improvement project piloted an RT-LAMP method on nasal and pharyngeal swabs on 21 residents of a high dependency care home, with two index COVID-19 cases, and compared it to multiplex tandem reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We recorded vital signs of patients to correlate clinical and laboratory information and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of a single swab using RT-LAMP compared with the current standard, RT-PCR, as per Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) guidelines. RESULTS: The novel method accurately detected 8/10 RT-PCR positive cases and identified a further 3 positive cases. Eight further cases were negative using both methods. Using repeated RT-PCR as a "gold standard", the sensitivity and specificity of a single novel test were 80 and 73% respectively. PPV was 73% and NPV was 83%. Incorporating retesting of low signal RT-LAMP positives improved the specificity to 100%. We also speculate that hypothermia may be a significant early clinical sign of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: RT-LAMP testing for SARS-CoV-2 was found to be promising, fast and to work equivalently to RT-PCR methods. RT-LAMP has the potential to transform COVID-19 detection, bringing rapid and accurate testing to the PoC. RT-LAMP could be deployed in mobile community testing units, care homes and hospitals to detect disease early and prevent spread.

Comparative assessment of multiple COVID-19 serological technologies supports continued evaluation of point-of-care lateral flow assays in hospital and community healthcare settings.

There is a clear requirement for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, both as a complement to existing diagnostic capabilities and for determining community seroprevalence. We therefore evaluated the performance of a variety of antibody testing technologies and their potential use as diagnostic tools. Highly specific in-house ELISAs were developed for the detection of anti-spike (S), -receptor binding domain (RBD) and -nucleocapsid (N) antibodies and used for the cross-comparison of ten commercial serological assays-a chemiluminescence-based platform, two ELISAs and seven colloidal gold lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)-on an identical panel of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples and 50 pre-pandemic negatives. There was a wide variation in the performance of the different platforms, with specificity ranging from 82% to 100%, and overall sensitivity from 60.9% to 87.3%. However, the head-to-head comparison of multiple sero-diagnostic assays on identical sample sets revealed that performance is highly dependent on the time of sampling, with sensitivities of over 95% seen in several tests when assessing samples from more than 20 days post onset of symptoms. Furthermore, these analyses identified clear outlying samples that were negative in all tests, but were later shown to be from individuals with mildest disease presentation. Rigorous comparison of antibody testing platforms will inform the deployment of point-of-care technologies in healthcare settings and their use in the monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

A comparative evaluation between the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test device and Abbott Architect™ SARS CoV-2 IgG assay.

INTRODUCTION: Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 serve as critical diagnostic markers for determining how broadly the COVID-19 pandemic has spread, confirming patient recovery, monitoring potential long-term effects of infection, and evaluating potential protection from reinfection. As new antibody tests become available, it is important to evaluate their performance and utility. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Abbott PanbioTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device against the Abbott ArchitectTM SARS CoV-2 IgG Assay for the detection of the COVID-19 IgG antibody. METHODS: Two panels of specimens were utilized to challenge both antibody tests: (1) a set of 150 prepandemic negative specimens collected in 2014, and (2) a set of 122 specimens from 87 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US and UK that were confirmed with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test result. RESULTS: The ArchitectTM test had a specificity of 100 % and sensitivity of 99.1 % and 93.9 % when excluding or including immunocompromised patients, respectively for specimens collected >14 days post symptom onset or >5 days post-RNA testing. The PanbioTM test had 99.3 % agreement to ArchitectTM. Notably, N = 6 immune-compromised individuals were identified that did not develop detectable antibodies by day 30. CONCLUSION: There is good concordance between the ArchitectTM SARS CoV-2 IgG Assay and PanbioTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device for the detection of SARS CoV-2 IgG.

Probable Vertical Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: To date, although neonatal infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronovirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been described, none of these have been proven to be the result of vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We describe the probable vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a neonate born to a mother with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESULTS: Following cesarean section, the neonate was kept in strict isolation. Molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples, blood, and meconium were initially negative, but positive on a nasopharyngeal aspirate on the third day of life. On day 5, the neonate developed fever and coryza, which spontaneously resolved. Viral genomic analysis from the mother and neonate showed identical sequences except for 1 nucleotide. CONCLUSION: This report has important implications for infection control and clinical management of pregnant women with COVID-19 and their newborns.

Real-world evaluation of a novel technology for quantitative simultaneous antibody detection against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in a cohort of patients presenting with COVID-19 syndrome.

An evaluation of a rapid portable gold-nanotechnology measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgA and IgG antibody concentrations against spike 1 (S1), spike 2 (S) and nucleocapsid (N) was conducted using serum samples from 74 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on admission to hospital, and 47 historical control patients from March 2019. 59 patients were RNA(+) and 15 were RNA(-). A serum (±) classification was derived for all three antigens and a quantitative serological profile was obtained. Serum(+) was identified in 30% (95% CI 11-48) of initially RNA(-) patients, in 36% (95% CI 17-54) of RNA(+) patients before 10 days, 77% (95% CI 67-87) between 10 and 20 days and 95% (95% CI 86-100) after 21 days. The patient-level diagnostic accuracy relative to RNA(±) after 10 days displayed 88% sensitivity (95% CI 75-95) and 75% specificity (95% CI 22-99), although specificity compared with historical controls was 100% (95%CI 91-100). This study provides robust support for further evaluation and validation of this novel technology in a clinical setting and highlights challenges inherent in assessment of serological tests for an emerging disease such as COVID-19.