Daily SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Antigen Tests Miss Infected and Presumably Infectious People Due to Viral Load Differences among Specimen Types.

In a recent household transmission study of SARS-CoV-2, we found extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among paired saliva, anterior nares swab (ANS), and oropharyngeal swab specimens collected from the same time point. We hypothesized these differences may hinder low-analytical-sensitivity assays (including antigen rapid diagnostic tests [Ag-RDTs]) by using a single specimen type (e.g., ANS) from reliably detecting infected and infectious individuals. We evaluated daily at-home ANS Ag-RDTs (Quidel QuickVue) in a cross-sectional analysis of 228 individuals and a longitudinal analysis (throughout infection) of 17 individuals enrolled early in the course of infection. Ag-RDT results were compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) results and high, presumably infectious viral loads (in each, or any, specimen type). The ANS Ag-RDT correctly detected only 44% of time points from infected individuals on cross-sectional analysis, and this population had an inferred limit of detection of 7.6 × 106 copies/mL. From the longitudinal cohort, daily Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity was very low (<3%) during the early, preinfectious period of the infection. Further, the Ag-RDT detected ≤63% of presumably infectious time points. The poor observed clinical sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was similar to what was predicted based on quantitative ANS viral loads and the inferred limit of detection of the ANS Ag-RDT being evaluated, indicating high-quality self-sampling. Nasal Ag-RDTs, even when used daily, can miss individuals infected with the Omicron variant and even those presumably infectious. Evaluations of Ag-RDTs for detection of infected or infectious individuals should be compared with a composite (multispecimen) infection status to correctly assess performance. IMPORTANCE We reveal three findings from a longitudinal study of daily nasal antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification in three specimen types (saliva, nasal swab, and throat swab) in participants enrolled at the incidence of infection. First, the evaluated Ag-RDT showed low (44%) clinical sensitivity for detecting infected persons at all infection stages. Second, the Ag-RDT poorly detected (≤63%) time points that participants had high and presumably infectious viral loads in at least one specimen type. This poor clinical sensitivity to detect infectious individuals is inconsistent with the commonly held view that daily Ag-RDTs have near-perfect detection of infectious individuals. Third, use of a combination nasal-throat specimen type was inferred by viral loads to significantly improve Ag-RDT performance to detect infectious individuals.

Extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among respiratory specimen types during presumed pre-infectious and infectious periods.

SARS-CoV-2 viral-load measurements from a single-specimen type are used to establish diagnostic strategies, interpret clinical-trial results for vaccines and therapeutics, model viral transmission, and understand virus-host interactions. However, measurements from a single-specimen type are implicitly assumed to be representative of other specimen types. We quantified viral-load timecourses from individuals who began daily self-sampling of saliva, anterior-nares (nasal), and oropharyngeal (throat) swabs before or at the incidence of infection with the Omicron variant. Viral loads in different specimen types from the same person at the same timepoint exhibited extreme differences, up to 109 copies/mL. These differences were not due to variation in sample self-collection, which was consistent. For most individuals, longitudinal viral-load timecourses in different specimen types did not correlate. Throat-swab and saliva viral loads began to rise as many as 7 days earlier than nasal-swab viral loads in most individuals, leading to very low clinical sensitivity of nasal swabs during the first days of infection. Individuals frequently exhibited presumably infectious viral loads in one specimen type while viral loads were low or undetectable in other specimen types. Therefore, defining an individual as infectious based on assessment of a single-specimen type underestimates the infectious period, and overestimates the ability of that specimen type to detect infectious individuals. For diagnostic COVID-19 testing, these three single-specimen types have low clinical sensitivity, whereas a combined throat-nasal swab, and assays with high analytical sensitivity, was inferred to have significantly better clinical sensitivity to detect presumed pre-infectious and infectious individuals.

High Fibrosis-4 Index Is Related with Worse Clinical Outcome in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Based on recent evidence on the importance of the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality, we analyzed whether these factors could additively predict such mortality. METHODS: This multicenter observational study included 1,019 adult inpatients admitted to university hospitals in Daegu. The demographic and laboratory findings, mortality, prevalence of severe disease, and duration of quarantine were compared between patients with and without DM and/or a high FIB-4 index. The mortality risk and corresponding hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The patients with DM (n=217) exhibited significantly higher FIB-4 index and mortality compared to those without DM. Although DM (HR, 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63 to 4.33) and a high FIB-4 index (HR, 4.20; 95% CI, 2.21 to 7.99) were separately identified as risk factors for COVID-19 mortality, the patients with both DM and high FIB-4 index had a significantly higher mortality (HR, 9.54; 95% CI, 4.11 to 22.15). Higher FIB-4 indices were associated with higher mortality regardless of DM. A high FIB-4 index with DM was more significantly associated with a severe clinical course with mortality (odds ratio, 11.24; 95% CI, 5.90 to 21.41) than a low FIB-4 index without DM, followed by a high FIB-4 index alone and DM alone. The duration of quarantine and hospital stay also tended to be longer in those with both DM and high FIB-4 index. CONCLUSION: Both DM and high FIB-4 index are independent and additive risk factors for COVID-19 mortality.

COVID-19 Vaccination for Endocrine Patients: A Position Statement from the Korean Endocrine Society.

Since the first outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), ongoing efforts have been made to discover an efficacious vaccine against COVID-19 to combat the pandemic. In most countries, both mRNA and DNA vaccines have been administered, and their side effects have also been reported. The clinical course of COVID-19 and the effects of vaccination against COVID-19 are both influenced by patients' health status and involve a systemic physiological response. In view of the systemic function of endocrine hormones, endocrine disorders themselves and the therapeutics used to treat them can influence the outcomes of vaccination for COVID-19. However, there are very limited data to support the development of clinical guidelines for patients with specific medical backgrounds based on large clinical trials. In the current severe circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, position statements made by clinical specialists are essential to provide appropriate recommendations based on both medical evidence and clinical experiences. As endocrinologists, we would like to present the medical background of COVID-19 vaccination, as well as precautions to prevent the side effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with specific endocrine disorders, including adrenal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, autoimmune thyroid disease, hypogonadism, and pituitary disorders.

Impact of Social Distancing Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 on the Changes in Glycosylated Hemoglobin Level in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

This study investigated the impact of social distancing due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We retrospectively analyzed the change in glycosylated hemoglobin level (ΔHbA1c) in people with T2DM who undertook social distancing because of COVID-19. We compared the ΔHbA1c between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts that were enrolled at the same time of year. The ΔHbA1c of the COVID-19 cohort was significantly higher than that of two non-COVID-19 cohorts. Subgroup analysis according to age and baseline HbA1c level showed that social distancing significantly increased the mean HbA1c level of participants of <50 years. The ΔHbA1c of participants of <50 years and with HbA1c <7.0% in the COVID-19 cohort showed larger changes than other subgroups. In adjusted model, adjusted ΔHbA1c levels in the COVID-19 cohort remained significantly higher than those in the two other cohorts. Social distancing negatively impacts blood glucose control in people with T2DM, especially those who are younger and have good blood glucose control.

The Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection and Diabetes in Daegu, South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that had affected more than eight million people worldwide by June 2020. Given the importance of the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) for host immunity, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 in patients with diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center observational study of 1,082 adult inpatients (aged ≥18 years) who were admitted to one of five university hospitals in Daegu because of the severity of their COVID-19-related disease. The demographic, laboratory, and radiologic findings, and the mortality, prevalence of severe disease, and duration of quarantine were compared between patients with and without DM. In addition, 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matching was conducted with the DM group. RESULTS: Compared with the non-DM group (n=847), patients with DM (n=235) were older, exhibited higher mortality, and required more intensive care. Even after PS-matching, patients with DM exhibited more severe disease, and DM remained a prognostic factor for higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.38 to 4.15). Subgroup analysis revealed that the presence of DM was associated with higher mortality, especially in older people (≥70 years old). Prior use of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor did not affect mortality or the clinical severity of the disease. CONCLUSION: DM is a significant risk factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality. Our findings imply that COVID-19 patients with DM, especially if elderly, require special attention and prompt intensive care.