A comparison of five Illumina, Ion Torrent, and nanopore sequencing technology-based approaches for whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2.

Rapid identification of the rise and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern remains critical for monitoring of the efficacy of diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and control strategies. A wide range of SARS-CoV-2 next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods have been developed over the last years, but cross-sequence technology benchmarking studies have been scarce. In the current study, 26 clinical samples were sequenced using five protocols: AmpliSeq SARS-CoV-2 (Illumina), EasySeq RC-PCR SARS-CoV-2 (Illumina/NimaGen), Ion AmpliSeq SARS-CoV-2 (Thermo Fisher), custom primer sets (Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT)), and capture probe-based viral metagenomics (Roche/Illumina). Studied parameters included genome coverage, depth of coverage, amplicon distribution, and variant calling. The median SARS-CoV-2 genome coverage of samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values of 30 and lower ranged from 81.6 to 99.8% for, respectively, the ONT protocol and Illumina AmpliSeq protocol. Correlation of coverage with PCR Ct values varied per protocol. Amplicon distribution signatures differed across the methods, with peak differences of up to 4 log10 at disbalanced positions in samples with high viral loads (Ct values ≤ 23). Phylogenetic analyses of consensus sequences showed clustering independent of the workflow used. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reads in relation to background sequences, as a (cost-)efficiency metric, was the highest for the EasySeq protocol. The hands-on time was the lowest when using EasySeq and ONT protocols, with the latter additionally having the shortest sequence runtime. In conclusion, the studied protocols differed on a variety of the studied metrics. This study provides data that assist laboratories when selecting protocols for their specific setting.

Epidemiologic and Genomic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Superspreading Event in Nightclub, the Netherlands, June 2021.

We report a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 superspreading event in the Netherlands after distancing rules were lifted in nightclubs, despite requiring a negative test or vaccination. This occurrence illustrates the potential for rapid dissemination of variants in largely unvaccinated populations under such conditions. We detected subsequent community transmission of this strain.

Supplementing SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance with PCR-based variant detection for real-time actionable information, the Netherlands, June to July 2021.

We evaluated routine testing with SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant-specific RT-PCR in regional hospital laboratories in addition to centralised national genomic surveillance in the Netherlands during June and July 2021. The increase of the Delta variant detected by RT-PCR correlated well with data from genomic surveillance and was available ca 2 weeks earlier. This rapid identification of the relative abundance and increase of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern may have important benefits for implementation of local public health measures.

Rapid reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 variant-of-concern Alpha detected in a nurse during an outbreak at a non-covid inpatient ward: lessons learned.

We describe the lessons learned during a SARS-CoV-2 variant-of-concern Alpha outbreak investigation at a normal care unit in a university hospital in Amsterdam in December 2020. The outbreak consisted of nine nurses and two roomed-in patient family members. (attack rate 18%). One nurse tested positive with a phylogenetically distinct variant, after a documented infection 83 days prior. Three key points were taken from this investigation. First, it was controlled by adherence to existing guidelines, despite increased transmissibility of the variant. Second, viral sequencing can inform transmission cluster inference, but the epidemiological context is essential to draw appropriate conclusions. Third, reinfections with Alpha variants can occur rapidly after primary infection.

Serologic Surveillance and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Health Care Workers.

Importance: It is unclear when, where, and by whom health care workers (HCWs) working in hospitals are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine how often and in what manner nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs in HCW groups with varying exposure to patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 4 weekly measurements of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and collection of questionnaires from March 23 to June 25, 2020, combined with phylogenetic and epidemiologic transmission analyses at 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands. Included individuals were HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and HCWs not working in patient care. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020. Exposures: Varying work-related exposure to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The cumulative incidence of and time to SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in blood samples, were measured. Results: Among 801 HCWs, there were 439 HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, 164 HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and 198 HCWs not working in patient care. There were 580 (72.4%) women, and the median (interquartile range) age was 36 (29-50) years. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was increased among HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19 (54 HCWs [13.2%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.4%]) compared with HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19 (11 HCWs [6.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%-10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.17-4.30) and HCWs not working in patient care (7 HCWs [3.6%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.1%]; HR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.79-8.62). Among HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence was increased among HCWs working on COVID-19 wards (32 of 134 HCWs [25.7%; 95% CI, 17.6%-33.1%]) compared with HCWs working on intensive care units (13 of 186 HCWs [7.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-10.7%]; HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.91-6.94), and HCWs working in emergency departments (7 of 102 HCWs [8.0%; 95% CI, 2.5%-13.1%]; HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.52-7.14). Epidemiologic data combined with phylogenetic analyses on COVID-19 wards identified 3 potential HCW-to-HCW transmission clusters. No patient-to-HCW transmission clusters could be identified in transmission analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that HCWs working on COVID-19 wards were at increased risk for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection with an important role for HCW-to-HCW transmission. These findings suggest that infection among HCWs deserves more consideration in infection prevention practice.