Two-Period Study Results from a Large Italian Hospital Laboratory Attesting SARS-CoV-2 Variant PCR Assay Evolution.

In keeping with the evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the COVID-19 causative agent, PCR assays have been developed to rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have emerged since the first (Alpha) variant was identified. Based on specific assortment of SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein mutations (ΔH69/V70, E484K, N501Y, W152C, L452R, K417N, and K417T) among the major variants known to date, Seegene Allplex SARS-CoV-2 Variants I and Variants II assays have been available since a few months before the last (Omicron) variant became predominant. Using S gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) as the SARS-CoV-2 variant identification reference method, we assessed the results of SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab samples from two testing periods, before (n = 288, using only Variants I) and after (n = 77, using both Variants I and Variants II) the appearance of Omicron. The Variants I assay allowed correct identification for Alpha (37/37), Beta/Gamma (28/30), or Delta (220/221) variant-positive samples. The combination of the Variants I and Variants II assays allowed correct identification for 61/77 Omicron variant-positive samples. While 16 samples had the K417N mutation undetected with the Variants II assay, 74/77 samples had both ΔH69/V70 and N501Y mutations detected with the Variants I assay. If considering only the results by the Variants I assay, 6 (2 Beta variant positive, 1 Delta variant positive, and 3 Omicron variant positive) of 365 samples tested in total provided incorrect identification. We showed that the Variants I assay alone might be more suitable than both the Variants I and Variants II assays to identify currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. Inclusion of additional variant-specific mutations should be expected in the development of future assays. IMPORTANCE Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 pose more important public health concerns than the previously circulating Alpha or Delta variants, particularly regarding the efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapeutics. Precise identification of these variants highly requires performant PCR-based assays that allow us to reduce the reliance on NGS-based assays, which remain the reference method in this topic. While the current epidemiological SARS-CoV-2 pandemic context suggests that PCR assays such as the Seegene Variants II may be dispensable, we took advantage of NGS data obtained in this study to show that the array of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mutations in the Seegene Variants II assay may be suboptimal. This reinforces the concept that initially developed PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 variant detection could be no longer helpful if the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic evolves to newly emerging variants.

Rapid Detection of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 Variant Using a COVID-19 Diagnostic PCR Assay.

The Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the last variant of concern (VOC) identified to date. Compared to whole-genome or gene-specific sequencing methods, reverse-transcription PCR assays may be a simpler approach to study VOCs. We used a point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostic PCR assay to detect the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant in the respiratory tract samples of COVID-19 patients who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA between April 2021 and January 2022. Sequencing analyses had shown that 87 samples were positive for the Omicron variant and 43 samples were positive for a non-Omicron variant (Delta, 18 samples; Alpha, 13 samples; Gamma, 10 samples; Beta, 1 sample; or Epsilon, 1 sample). According to results by the PCR assay, whose primers anneal a nucleocapsid (N) gene region that comprises the E31/R32/S33 deletion (also termed the del31/33 mutation), we found that N gene target failure/dropout (i.e., a negative/low result) occurred in 86 (98.8%) of 87 Omicron variant-positive samples tested. These results were assessed in relation to those of the spike (S) gene, which expectedly, was detected in all (100%) 130 samples. A total of 43 (100%) of 43 Delta, Alpha, Gamma, Beta, or Epsilon variant-positive samples had a positive result with the N gene. Importantly, in 86 of 87 Omicron variant-positive samples, the del31/33 mutation was detected together with a P13L mutation, which was, instead, detected alone in the Omicron variant-positive sample that had a positive N-gene result. IMPORTANCE Rapid detection of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant in patients' respiratory tract samples may influence therapeutic choices, because this variant is known to escape from certain monoclonal antibodies. Our findings strengthen the importance of manufacturers' efforts to improve the existing COVID-19 diagnostic PCR assays and/or to develop novel variant-specific PCR assays. Furthermore, our findings show that only a small fraction of SARS-CoV-2-positive samples may require whole-genome sequencing analysis, which is still crucial to validate PCR assay results. We acknowledge that the emergence of novel variants containing mutations outside the PCR assay target region could, however, allow an assay to work as per specifications without being able to identify a SARS-CoV-2-positive sample as a variant. Future work and more experience in this topic will help to reduce the risk of misidentification of SARS-CoV-2 variants that is unavoidable when using the current PCR assays.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Bacterial Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Using a Multiplex PCR Assay: A Large Italian Hospital's Five-Month Experience.

Bacterial pneumonia is a challenging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complication for intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. Upon its implementation, the FilmArray pneumonia plus (FA-PP) panel's practicability for both the diagnosis and antimicrobial therapy management of bacterial pneumonia was assessed in ICU patients with COVID-19. Respiratory samples were collected from patients who were mechanically ventilated at the time bacterial etiology and antimicrobial resistance were determined using both standard-of-care (culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing [AST]) and FA-PP panel testing methods. Changes to targeted and/or appropriate antimicrobial therapy were reviewed. We tested 212 samples from 150 patients suspected of bacterial pneumonia. Etiologically, 120 samples were positive by both methods, two samples were culture positive but FA-PP negative (i.e., negative for on-panel organisms), and 90 were negative by both methods. FA-PP detected no culture-growing organisms (mostly Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa) in 19 of 120 samples or antimicrobial resistance genes in two culture-negative samples for S. aureus organisms. Fifty-nine (27.8%) of 212 samples were from empirically treated patients. Antibiotics were discontinued in 5 (33.3%) of 15 patients with FA-PP-negative samples and were escalated/deescalated in 39 (88.6%) of 44 patients with FA-PP-positive samples. Overall, antibiotics were initiated in 87 (72.5%) of 120 pneumonia episodes and were not administered in 80 (87.0%) of 92 nonpneumonia episodes. Antimicrobial-resistant organisms caused 78 (60.0%) of 120 episodes. Excluding 19 colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii episodes, AST confirmed appropriate antibiotic receipt in 101 (84.2%) of 120 episodes for one or more FA-PP-detected organisms. Compared to standard-of-care testing, the FA-PP panel may be of great value in the management of COVID-19 patients at risk of developing bacterial pneumonia in the ICU. IMPORTANCE Since bacterial pneumonia is relatively frequent, suspicion of it in COVID-19 patients may prompt ICU clinicians to overuse (broad-spectrum) antibiotics, particularly when empirical antibiotics do not cover the suspected pathogen. We showed that a PCR-based, culture-independent laboratory assay allows not only accurate diagnosis but also streamlining of antimicrobial therapy for bacterial pneumonia episodes. We report on the actual implementation of rapid diagnostics and its real-life impact on patient treatment, which is a gain over previously published studies on the topic. A better understanding of the role of that or similar PCR assays in routine ICU practice may lead us to appreciate the effectiveness of their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic.