Viral co-infections are associated with increased rates of hospitalization in those with influenza.

BACKGROUND: Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. Among patients infected with influenza, the presence of bacterial co-infection is associated with worse clinical outcomes; less is known regarding the clinical importance of viral co-infections. The objective of this study was to determine rates of viral co-infections in emergency department (ED) patients with confirmed influenza and association of co-infection with disease severity. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a biorepository and clinical database from a parent study where rapid influenza testing was implemented in four U.S. academic EDs, during the 2014-2015 influenza season. Patients were systematically tested for influenza virus using a validated clinical decision guideline. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from medical records; nasopharyngeal specimens from influenza-positive patients were tested for viral co-infections (ePlex, Genmark Diagnostics). Patterns of viral co-infections were evaluated using chi-square analysis. The association of viral co-infection with hospital admission was assessed using univariate and multivariate regression. RESULTS: The overall influenza A/B positivity rate was 18.1% (1071/5919). Of the 999 samples with ePlex results, the prevalence of viral co-infections was 7.9% (79/999). The most common viral co-infection was rhinovirus/enterovirus (RhV/EV), at 3.9% (39/999). The odds of hospital admission (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.01-5.34) increased significantly for those with viral co-infections (other than RhV/EV) versus those with influenza A infection only. CONCLUSION: Presence of viral co-infection (other than RhV/EV) in ED influenza A/B positive patients was independently associated with increased risk of hospital admission. Further research is needed to determine clinical utility of ED multiplex testing.

Limitations of Molecular and Antigen Test Performance for SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic COVID-19 Contacts.

COVID-19 has brought unprecedented attention to the crucial role of diagnostics in pandemic control. We compared severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test performance by sample type and modality in close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases. Close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were enrolled after informed consent. Clinician-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in viral transport media (VTM) were tested with a routine clinical reference nucleic acid test (NAT) and PerkinElmer real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay; positive samples were tested for infectivity using a VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. Self-collected passive drool was also tested using the PerkinElmer RT-PCR assay. For the first 4 months of study, midturbinate swabs were tested using the BD Veritor rapid antigen test. Between 17 November 2020 and 1 October 2021, 235 close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases were recruited, including 95 with symptoms (82% symptomatic for ≤5 days) and 140 asymptomatic individuals. Reference NATs were positive for 53 (22.6%) participants; 24/50 (48%) were culture positive. PerkinElmer testing of NP and saliva samples identified an additional 28 (11.9%) SARS-CoV-2 cases who tested negative by reference NAT. Antigen tests performed for 99 close contacts showed 83% positive percent agreement (PPA) with reference NAT among early symptomatic persons, but 18% PPA in others; antigen tests in 8 of 11 (72.7%) culture-positive participants were positive. Contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases may be falsely negative early after contact, but more sensitive platforms may identify these cases. Repeat or serial SARS-CoV-2 testing with both antigen and molecular assays may be warranted for individuals with high pretest probability for infection.

Evaluation of Four Point of Care (POC) Antigen Assays for the Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Variant Omicron.

Ensuring SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics that can reliably detect emerging variants has been an ongoing challenge. Due to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, point-of-care (POC) antigen tests have become more widely used. This study aimed at (i) comparing the analytical sensitivity (LOD) of 4 POC antigen assays, BD Veritor, Abbott BinaxNow, Orasure InteliSwab and Quidel QuickVue, for the Omicron versus the Delta variant and (ii) verifying the reproducible detection of Omicron by the 4 antigen assays. The LOD for all four assays were evaluated using Omicron and Delta virus stocks quantified for infectivity and genome copies. The four assays detected all replicates of Omicron and Delta dilutions at 104 and 105 TCID50/mL, respectively. We quantified both viral stocks using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), which revealed that the Omicron stock had equivalent copies of the N gene to Delta at a one log lower infectious virus. The Abbott BinaxNow and Orasure InteliSwab had the highest analytical sensitivity for Omicron while the Orasure InteliSwab and the Quidel QuickVue had the highest analytical sensitivity for Delta. When 14 SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR positive nasal/nasopharyngeal swab samples (12 Omicron and 2 Delta, mean Ct = 19.1), were tested by the four assays, only the QuickVue detected all samples. Antigen test positivity correlated with recovery of infectious virus on cell culture in 9 out of 13 tested specimens from symptomatic, asymptomatic, unvaccinated, and vaccinated individuals. Although our study confirms the reduced analytical sensitivity of antigen testing compared to molecular methods, the Omicron variant was detectable by the four evaluated rapid antigen tests. IMPORTANCE In the manuscript, we report an evaluation of the capability of 4 point of care (POC) antigen assays, the BD Veritor, Abbott BinaxNow, Orasure InteliSwab and Quidel QuickVue to detect the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, and we compared their analytical sensitivity for Omicron versus Delta. In this analysis we found that all four assays detected Omicron and Delta at 104 and 105 TCID50/mL, respectively. We further quantified the viral stocks used by droplet digital (ddPCR) and found that the Omicron stock had equivalent copies of the N gene to Delta at a one log lower infectious virus titer and that an increased RNA to infectious virus ratio may be contributing to discrepancies in limit of detection in Omicron compared to Delta. We evaluated 14 SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR positive nasal/nasopharyngeal swab samples (12 Omicron and 2 Delta), with an average cycle threshold value of 19.1, and only the QuickVue showed 100% agreement.

Respiratory viruses in rural Zambia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions were implemented globally to control the virus. Data on respiratory pathogens in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic are scarce. This analysis was conducted to evaluate patterns of respiratory pathogens in rural Zambia before and during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: Surveillance was established in December 2018 at Macha Hospital in southern Zambia. Patients with respiratory symptoms in the outpatient and inpatient clinics were recruited. Nasopharyngeal samples were collected and tested for respiratory pathogens. The prevalence of respiratory symptoms and pathogens was evaluated and compared in the first (December 10, 2018-December 9, 2019) and second (December 10, 2019-November 30, 2020) years of surveillance. RESULTS: Outpatient visits and admissions for respiratory illness significantly decreased from the first to second year, especially among children. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected from any participants in Year 2. Among outpatients and inpatients with respiratory symptoms, the prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus and influenza viruses decreased from the first to second year. In contrast, the prevalence of rhinovirus/enterovirus, metapneumovirus and parainfluenza virus increased. CONCLUSIONS: The epidemiology of respiratory viruses in rural Zambia changed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that public health interventions may have had an impact on the introduction and circulation of respiratory pathogens in this area.

Improving the specificity of nucleic acid detection with endonuclease-actuated degradation.

Nucleic acid detection is essential for numerous biomedical applications, but often requires complex protocols and/or suffers false-positive readouts. Here, we describe SENTINEL, an approach that combines isothermal amplification with a sequence-specific degradation method to detect nucleic acids with high sensitivity and sequence-specificity. Target single-stranded RNA or double-stranded DNA molecules are amplified by loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and subsequently degraded by the combined action of lambda exonuclease and a sequence-specific DNA endonuclease (e.g., Cas9). By combining the sensitivity of LAMP with the precision of DNA endonucleases, the protocol achieves attomolar limits of detection while differentiating between sequences that differ by only one or two base pairs. The protocol requires less than an hour to complete using a 65 °C heat block and fluorometer, and detects SARS-CoV-2 virus particles in human saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs with high sensitivity.

Preclinical Validation of a Novel Injection-Molded Swab for the Molecular Assay Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, many actions have been undertaken to help ensure that patients and health care providers have timely and continued access to high-quality medical devices to respond effectively. The development and validation of new testing supplies and equipment, including collection swabs, has helped to expand the availability and capability for various diagnostic, therapeutic, and protective medical devices in high demand during the COVID-19 emergency. Here, we report the initial validation of a new injection-molded anterior nasal swab, ClearTip™, that was experimentally validated in a laboratory setting as well as in independent clinical studies in comparison to gold standard flocked swabs. We have also developed an in vitro anterior nasal tissue model which offers a novel, efficient, and clinically relevant validation tool to replicate the clinical swabbing workflow with high fidelity, while being accessible, safe, reproducible, and time- and cost-effective. ClearTip™ displayed greater inactivated virus release in the benchtop model, confirmed by its greater ability to report positive samples in a small clinical study in comparison to flocked swabs. We also quantified the detection of biological materials, as a proxy for viral material, in multi-center pre-clinical and clinical studies which showed a statistically significant difference in one study and a reduction in performance in comparison to flocked swabs. Taken together, these results emphasize the compelling benefits of non-absorbent injection-molded anterior nasal swabs for COVID-19 detection, comparable to standard flocked swabs. Injection-molded swabs, as ClearTip™, could have the potential to support future swab shortages, due to its manufacturing advantages, while offering benefits in comparison to highly absorbent swabs in terms of comfort, limited volume collection, and potential multiple usage.

Delayed Rise of Oral Fluid Antibodies, Elevated BMI, and Absence of Early Fever Correlate With Longer Time to SARS-CoV-2 RNA Clearance in a Longitudinally Sampled Cohort of COVID-19 Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Sustained molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in the upper respiratory tract (URT) in mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is common. We sought to identify host and immune determinants of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. METHODS: Ninety-five symptomatic outpatients self-collected midturbinate nasal, oropharyngeal (OP), and gingival crevicular fluid (oral fluid) samples at home and in a research clinic a median of 6 times over 1-3 months. Samples were tested for viral RNA, virus culture, and SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronavirus antibodies, and associations were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Viral RNA clearance, as measured by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in 507 URT samples occurred a median (interquartile range) 33.5 (17-63.5) days post-symptom onset. Sixteen nasal-OP samples collected 2-11 days post-symptom onset were virus culture positive out of 183 RT-PCR-positive samples tested. All participants but 1 with positive virus culture were negative for concomitant oral fluid anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The mean time to first antibody detection in oral fluid was 8-13 days post-symptom onset. A longer time to first detection of oral fluid anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99; P = .020) and body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 (aHR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.78; P = .009) were independently associated with a longer time to SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA clearance. Fever as 1 of first 3 COVID-19 symptoms correlated with shorter time to viral RNA clearance (aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.02-4.18; P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that delayed rise of oral fluid SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, elevated BMI, and absence of early fever are independently associated with delayed URT viral RNA clearance.

Self-Collected Oral Fluid Saliva Is Insensitive Compared With Nasal-Oropharyngeal Swabs in the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic control will require widespread access to accurate diagnostics. Salivary sampling circumvents swab supply chain bottlenecks, is amenable to self-collection, and is less likely to create an aerosol during collection compared with the nasopharyngeal swab. METHODS: We compared real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction Abbott m2000 results from matched salivary oral fluid (gingival crevicular fluid collected in an Oracol device) and nasal-oropharyngeal (OP) self-collected specimens in viral transport media from a nonhospitalized, ambulatory cohort of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at multiple time points. These 2 sentences should be at the beginning of the results. RESULTS: There were 171 matched specimen pairs. Compared with nasal-OP swabs, 41.6% of the oral fluid samples were positive. Adding spit to the oral fluid percent collection device increased the percent positive agreement from 37.2% (16 of 43) to 44.6% (29 of 65). The positive percent agreement was highest in the first 5 days after symptoms and decreased thereafter. All of the infectious nasal-OP samples (culture positive on VeroE6 TMPRSS2 cells) had a matched SARS-CoV-2 positive oral fluid sample. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of nonhospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected persons, we demonstrate lower diagnostic sensitivity of self-collected oral fluid compared with nasal-OP specimens, a difference that was especially prominent more than 5 days from symptom onset. These data do not justify the routine use of oral fluid collection for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 despite the greater ease of collection. It also underscores the importance of considering the method of saliva specimen collection and the time from symptom onset especially in outpatient populations.

Identification of pathogens from the upper respiratory tract of adult emergency department patients at high risk for influenza complications in a pre-Sars-CoV-2 environment.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic highlights the morbidity and potential disease severity caused by respiratory viruses. To elucidate pathogen prevalence, etiology of coinfections and URIs from symptomatic adult Emergency department patients in a pre-SARS-CoV-2 environment, we evaluated specimens from four geographically diverse Emergency departments in the United States from 2013-2014 utilizing ePlex RP RUO cartridges (Genmark Diagnostics). The overall positivity was 30.1% (241/799), with 6.6% (16/241) coinfections. Noninfluenza pathogens from most to least common were rhinovirus/enterovirus, coronavirus, human metapneumovirus and RSV, respectively. Broad differences in disease prevalence and pathogen distributions were observed across geographic regions; the site with the highest detection rate (for both mono and coinfections) demonstrated the greatest pathogen diversity. A variety of respiratory pathogens and geographic variations in disease prevalence and copathogen type were observed. Further research is required to evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings, especially considering the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and related questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 disease severity and the presence of co-infections.

Highly multiplexed oligonucleotide probe-ligation testing enables efficient extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 detection and viral genotyping.

There is an urgent and unprecedented need for sensitive and high-throughput molecular diagnostic tests to combat the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Here we present a generalized version of the RNA-mediated oligonucleotide Annealing Selection and Ligation with next generation DNA sequencing (RASL-seq) assay, called "capture RASL-seq" (cRASL-seq), which enables highly sensitive (down to ~1-100 pfu/ml or cfu/ml) and highly multiplexed (up to ~10,000 target sequences) detection of pathogens. Importantly, cRASL-seq analysis of COVID-19 patient nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens does not involve nucleic acid purification or reverse transcription, steps that have introduced supply bottlenecks into standard assay workflows. Our simplified protocol additionally enables the direct and efficient genotyping of selected, informative SARS-CoV-2 polymorphisms across the entire genome, which can be used for enhanced characterization of transmission chains at population scale and detection of viral clades with higher or lower virulence. Given its extremely low per-sample cost, simple and automatable protocol and analytics, probe panel modularity, and massive scalability, we propose that cRASL-seq testing is a powerful new technology with the potential to help mitigate the current pandemic and prevent similar public health crises.

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point-of-Care Testing.

Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparisons of these assays. The performances of 15 different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were compared on a well-characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (collected an average of 45 days after symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the prepandemic era (negative control) that were known to represent infections with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, and C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, and NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed using five lateral flow assays (LFAs) and a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients for whom the time since symptom onset was known. Among the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55% to 97% and from 78% to 100%, respectively. Assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 88% and 80% to 100% for IgM and from 25% to 95% and 90% to 100% for IgG, respectively. Longitudinal testing revealed that the median times after symptom onset to a positive result were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4 to 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR, 6.3 to 11.3) for IgG. The testing performances differed widely among LFAs, with greatest amount of variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was the band most likely to misclassify prepandemic samples. The appearances of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.

Respiratory pathogen diversity and co-infections in rural Zambia.

OBJECTIVES: The role of respiratory co-infections in modulating disease severity remains understudied in southern Africa, particularly in rural areas. This study was performed to characterize the spectrum of respiratory pathogens in rural southern Zambia and the prognostic impact of co-infections. METHODS: Respiratory specimens collected from inpatient and outpatient participants in a viral surveillance program in 2018-2019 were tested for selected viruses and atypical bacteria using the Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay and FilmArray Respiratory Panel EZ. Participants were followed for 3-5 weeks to assess their clinical course. Multivariable regression was used to examine the role of co-infections in influencing disease severity. RESULTS: A respiratory pathogen was detected in 63.2% of samples from 671 participants who presented with influenza-like illness. Common pathogens identified included influenza virus (18.2% of samples), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (11.8%), rhinovirus (26.4%), and coronavirus (6.0%). Overall, 6.4% of participants were co-infected with multiple respiratory pathogens. Compared to mono-infections, co-infections were found not to be associated with severe clinical illness either overall (relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-1.32) or specifically with influenza virus (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.14-4.46) or RSV infections (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory infections in rural southern Zambia were associated with a wide range of viruses. Respiratory co-infections in this population were not associated with clinical severity.

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point of Care Testing.

BACKGROUND: Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparison of these assays. METHODS: Performance of fifteen different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies was performed on a well characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (average of 45 days post symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the pre-pandemic era (negative control), that were known to have been infected with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed on five POCTs on a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients of known time since symptom onset. RESULTS: For the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55%-97% and 78%-100%, respectively. When assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0%-88% and 80%-100% for IgM and 25%-95% and 90%-100% for IgG. Longitudinal testing revealed that median time post symptom onset to a positive result was 7 days (IQR 5.4, 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR 6.3 to 11.3). CONCLUSION: The testing performance varied widely among POCTs with most variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was most likely to misclassify pre-pandemic samples. The appearance of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.

Comparison of the analytical sensitivity of seven commonly used commercial SARS-CoV-2 automated molecular assays.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has challenged molecular microbiology laboratories to quickly implement and validate diagnostic assays and to expand testing capacity in a short timeframe. Multiple molecular diagnostic methods received FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) and were promptly validated for use nationwide. Several studies reported the analytical and/ or clinical evaluation of these molecular assays, however differences in the viral materials used for these evaluations complicated direct comparison of their analytical performance. In this study, we compared the analytical sensitivity (lower limit of detection, LOD) of seven commonly used qualitative SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays: the Abbott Molecular RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay, the NeuMoDx™ SARS-CoV-2 assay, the Roche Cobas®SARS-CoV-2 assay, the BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for BD MAX™ system, the Hologic Aptima® SARS-CoV-2 assay, the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test, and the GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 test. The comparison was performed utilizing a single positive clinical specimen that was serially diluted in viral transport media and quantified by the EUA approved SARS-CoV-2 droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay. Replicate samples were prepared and evaluated for reproducibility across different molecular assays with multiple replicates per assay. Our data demonstrated that the seven assays could detect 100 % of replicates at a nucleocapsid gene concentration of (N1 = 1,267 and N2 = 1,392) copies/mL. At a one log less concentration, the Abbott, the Roche, and the Xpert Xpress assays detected 100 % of the tested replicates.