Potential pitfalls in analysing a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay and how to standardise data interpretation.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019 lead to the rapid implementation of assays for virus detection, with real-time RT-PCR arguably considered the gold-standard. In our laboratory Altona RealStar SARS-Cov-2 RT-PCR kits are used with Applied Biosystems QuantStudio 7 Flex thermocyclers. Real-time PCR data interpretation is potentially complex and time-consuming, particularly for SARS-CoV-2, where the laboratory handles up to 2000 samples each day. To simplify this, an automated system that rapidly interprets the curves, developed by diagnostics.ai was introduced. QuantStudio software provides two methods for interpretation, relative threshold and baseline threshold. Many of our assays are analysed using relative threshold and directly exported into pcr.ai software, however, in some rare cases the QuantStudio software assigns positive results to 'ambiguous' curves, flagged by pcr.ai, requiring manual intervention. Due to the sample numbers processed and the proportionate increase in curves flagged by pcr.ai, the two methods were investigated. An audit was carried out to determine the frequency of these curves, involving 138 samples tested during November 2020, including 97 serial samples from 38 patients and it was determined that the relative threshold method produced unreliable results in many of these cases. In addition, we present a solution to simplify the interpretation and automate the process.

Nosocomial transmission of hepatitis E virus and development of chronic infection: The wider impact of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of hepatitis E virus (HEV) within the healthcare setting is extremely rare. Additionally, the development of chronic HEV infection in association with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or its immunomodulatory therapy has not been reported previously. AIMS: To describe the investigation and management of a nosocomial HEV transmission incident during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Epidemiological and molecular investigation of two individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 who were both diagnosed with HEV infection. RESULTS: Findings from our investigation were consistent with transmission of HEV from one patient with a community-acquired HEV infection to another individual (identical HEV sequences were identified in the two patients), most likely due to a breach in infection control practices whilst both patients shared a bed space on the intensive care unit (ICU). Chronic HEV infection requiring treatment with ribavirin developed in one patient with prolonged lymphopaenia attributable to COVID-19 and/or the immunomodulators received for its treatment. Further investigation did not identify transmission of HEV to any other patients or to healthcare workers. CONCLUSIONS: The extraordinary demands that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed on all aspects of healthcare, particularly within ICU settings, has greatly challenged the ability to consistently maintain optimal infection prevention and control practices. Under the significant pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic a highly unusual nosocomial HEV transmission incident occurred complicated further by progression to a chronic HEV infection in one patient.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infections in Critical Care Staff: Beware the Risks Beyond the Bedside.

OBJECTIVES: Critical care workers were considered to be at high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection from patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Staff symptoms, previous swab testing, and antibody prevalence were correlated with patient admissions to investigate this assumption. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large critical care department in a tertiary-care teaching hospital in London, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Staff working in critical care. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants completed a questionnaire and provided a serum sample for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody testing over a 3-day period in April 2020. We compared the timing of symptoms in staff to the coronavirus disease 2019 patient admissions to critical care. We also identified factors associated with antibody detection. Of 625 staff 384 (61.4%) reported previous symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those swabbed (29.8%). Overall, 21% (131/625) had detectable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody, of whom 9.9% (13/131) had been asymptomatic. The peak onset of symptoms among staff occurred 2 weeks before the peak in coronavirus disease 2019 patient admissions. Staff who worked in multiple departments across the hospital were more likely to be seropositive. Staff with a symptomatic household contact were also more likely to be seropositive at 31.3%, compared with 16.2% in those without (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Staff who developed coronavirus disease 2019 were less likely to have caught it from their patients in critical care. Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection. These findings indicate that personal protective equipment was effective at preventing transmission from patients. However, staff also need to maintain protective measures away from the bedside.