Comparison of Mid-turbinate Nasal Swabs, Saliva, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing in Pediatric Outpatients.

CONTEXT.­: Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children remains integral to care, particularly for supporting return to and attendance in schools. The concordance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in children, using various specimen types, has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare 3 sample types for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in children, collected and tested at a single facility. DESIGN.­: We prospectively recruited 142 symptomatic and asymptomatic children/young adults into a sample comparison study performed in a single health care system. Each child provided self-collected saliva, and a trained health care provider collected a mid-turbinate nasal swab and nasopharyngeal (NP) swab. Specimens were assayed within 24 hours of collection by using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 on a single testing platform. RESULTS.­: Concurrently collected saliva and mid-turbinate swabs had greater than 95% positive agreement with NP swabs when obtained within 10 days of symptom onset. Positive agreement of saliva and mid-turbinate samples collected from children with symptom onset >10 days prior, or without symptoms, was 82% compared to NP swab samples. Cycle threshold (Ct) values for mid-turbinate nasal samples more closely correlated with Ct values from NP samples than from saliva samples. CONCLUSIONS.­: These findings suggest that all 3 sample types from children are useful for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing by RT-PCR, and that concordance is greatest when the child has had symptoms of COVID-19 within the past 10 days. This study provides scientific justification for using sample types other than the NP swab for SARS-CoV-2 testing in pediatric populations.

Don't forget about human factors: Lessons learned from COVID-19 point-of-care testing.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the development of point-of-care (POC) diagnostic testing accelerated in an unparalleled fashion. As a result, there has been an increased need for accurate, robust, and easy-to-use POC testing in a variety of non-traditional settings (i.e., pharmacies, drive-thru sites, schools). While stakeholders often express the desire for POC technologies that are "as simple as digital pregnancy tests," there is little discussion of what this means in regards to device design, development, and assessment. The design of POC technologies and systems should take into account the capabilities and limitations of the users and their environments. Such "human factors" are important tenets that can help technology developers create POC technologies that are effective for end-users in a multitude of settings. Here, we review the core principles of human factors and discuss lessons learned during the evaluation process of SARS-CoV-2 POC testing.

The RADx Tech Test Verification Core and the ACME POCT in the Evaluation of COVID-19 Testing Devices: A Model for Progress and Change.

Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, the US system for developing and testing technologies was challenged in unparalleled ways. This article describes the multi-institutional, transdisciplinary team of the "RADxSM Tech Test Verification Core" and its role in expediting evaluations of COVID-19 testing devices. Expertise related to aspects of diagnostic testing was coordinated to evaluate testing devices with the goal of significantly expanding the ability to mass screen Americans to preserve lives and facilitate the safe return to work and school. Focal points included: laboratory and clinical device evaluation of the limit of viral detection, sensitivity, and specificity of devices in controlled and community settings; regulatory expertise to provide focused attention to barriers to device approval and distribution; usability testing from the perspective of patients and those using the tests to identify and overcome device limitations, and engineering assessment to evaluate robustness of design including human factors, manufacturability, and scalability.

Osteopontin as a biomarker for COVID-19 severity and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: A pilot study.

This study sought to evaluate the candidacy of plasma osteopontin (OPN) as a biomarker of COVID-19 severity and multisystem inflammatory condition in children (MIS-C) in children. A retrospective analysis of 26 children (0-21 years of age) admitted to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between March 17 and May 26, 2020 was undertaken. The patients were classified into three categories based on COVID-19 severity levels: asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic (control population, admitted for other non-COVID-19 conditions), mild/moderate, and severe COVID-19. A fourth category of children met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's case definition for MIS-C. Residual blood samples were analyzed for OPN, a marker of inflammation using commercial ELISA kits (R&D), and results were correlated with clinical data. This study demonstrates that OPN levels are significantly elevated in children hospitalized with moderate and severe COVID-19 and MIS-C compared to OPN levels in mild/asymptomatic children. Further, OPN differentiated among clinical levels of severity in COVID-19, while other inflammatory markers including maximum erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein and ferritin, minimum lymphocyte and platelet counts, soluble interleukin-2R, and interleukin-6 did not. We conclude OPN is a potential biomarker of COVID-19 severity and MIS-C in children that may have future clinical utility. The specificity and positive predictive value of this marker for COVID-19 and MIS-C are areas for future larger prospective research studies.

Altered amino acid profile in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Low plasma arginine bioavailability has been implicated in endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation. The role of arginine in COVID-19 is unknown, but could contribute to cellular damage if low. Our objective was to determine arginine bioavailability in adults and children with COVID-19 vs. healthy controls. We hypothesized that arginine bioavailability would be low in patients with COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). We conducted a prospective observational study of three patient cohorts; arginine bioavailability was determined in asymptomatic healthy controls, adults hospitalized with COVID-19, and hospitalized children/adolescents <21 y old with COVID-19, MIS-C, or asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection identified on admission screen. Mean patient plasma amino acids were compared to controls using the Student's t test. Arginine-to-ornithine ratio, a biomarker of arginase activity, and global arginine bioavailability ratio (GABR, arginine/[ornithine+citrulline]) were assessed in all three groups. A total of 80 patients were included (28 controls, 32 adults with COVID-19, and 20 pediatric patients with COVID-19/MIS-C). Mean plasma arginine and arginine bioavailability ratios were lower among adult and pediatric patients with COVID-19/MIS-C compared to controls. There was no difference between arginine bioavailability in children with COVID-19 vs. MIS-C. Adults and children with COVID-19 and MIS-C in our cohort had low arginine bioavailability compared to healthy adult controls. This may contribute to immune dysregulation and endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19. Low arginine-to-ornithine ratio in patients with COVID-19 or MIS-C suggests an elevation of arginase activity. Further study is merited to explore the role of arginine dysregulation in COVID-19.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in pediatric healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine SARS-CoV-2-antibody prevalence in pediatric healthcare workers (pHCWs). DESIGN: Baseline prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG was assessed in a prospective cohort study from a large pediatric healthcare facility. Prior SARS-CoV-2 testing history, potential risk factors and anxiety level about COVID-19 were determined. Prevalence difference between emergency department (ED)-based and non-ED-pHCWs was modeled controlling for those covariates. Chi-square test-for-trend was used to examine prevalence by month of enrollment. RESULTS: Most of 642 pHCWs enrolled were 31-40years, female and had no comorbidities. Half had children in their home, 49% had traveled, 42% reported an illness since January, 31% had a known COVID-19 exposure, and 8% had SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. High COVID-19 pandemic anxiety was reported by 71%. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG prevalence was 4.1%; 8.4% among ED versus 2.0% among non-ED pHCWs (p < 0.001). ED-work location and known COVID-19 exposure were independent risk factors. 31% of antibody-positive pHCWs reported no symptoms. Prevalence significantly (p < 0.001) increased from 3.0% in April-June to 12.7% in July-August. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG prevalence was low in pHCWs but increased rapidly over time. Both working in the ED and exposure to a COVID-19-positive contact were associated with antibody-seropositivity. Ongoing universal PPE utilization is essential. These data may guide vaccination policies to protect front-line workers.