Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Air and on Surfaces in Rooms of Infected Nursing Home Residents.

There is an ongoing debate on airborne transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a risk factor for infection. In this study, the level of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces of SARS-CoV-2 infected nursing home residents was assessed to gain insight in potential transmission routes. During outbreaks, air samples were collected using three different active and one passive air sampling technique in rooms of infected patients. Oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) of the residents and dry surface swabs were collected. Additionally, longitudinal passive air samples were collected during a period of 4 months in common areas of the wards. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined using RT-qPCR, targeting the RdRp- and E-genes. OPS, samples of two active air samplers and surface swabs with Ct-value ≤35 were tested for the presence of infectious virus by cell culture. In total, 360 air and 319 surface samples from patient rooms and common areas were collected. In rooms of 10 residents with detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in OPS, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 93 of 184 collected environmental samples (50.5%) (lowest Ct 29.5), substantially more than in the rooms of residents with negative OPS on the day of environmental sampling (n = 2) (3.6%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was most frequently present in the larger particle size fractions [>4 µm 60% (6/10); 1-4 µm 50% (5/10); <1 µm 20% (2/10)] (Fischer exact test P = 0.076). The highest proportion of RNA-positive air samples on room level was found with a filtration-based sampler 80% (8/10) and the cyclone-based sampler 70% (7/10), and impingement-based sampler 50% (5/10). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 10 out of 12 (83%) passive air samples in patient rooms. Both high-touch and low-touch surfaces contained SARS-CoV-2 genome in rooms of residents with positive OPS [high 38% (21/55); low 50% (22/44)]. In one active air sample, infectious virus in vitro was detected. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 is frequently detected in air and on surfaces in the immediate surroundings of room-isolated COVID-19 patients, providing evidence of environmental contamination. The environmental contamination of SARS-CoV-2 and infectious aerosols confirm the potential for transmission via air up to several meters.

Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of nasal mid-turbinate self-testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) for persons with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the community. Self-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RDT, provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Participants visiting a municipal SARS-CoV-2 testing centre, received self-testing kits containing either the BD Veritor System (BD-RDT) or Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test (Roche-RDT). Oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the participants for quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) testing. As a proxy for contagiousness, viral culture was performed on a selection of qRT-PCR positive samples to determine the Ct-value at which the chance of a positive culture dropped below 0.5 (Ct-value cut-off). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing were compared to qRT-PCR with a Ct-value below the Ct value cut-off. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-test result were determined. RESULTS: A total of 3201 participants were included (BD-RDT n = 1595; Roche-RDT n = 1606). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared with the qRT-PCR results with a Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off were 78.4% (95% CI 73.2%-83.5%) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1%-99.7%), respectively. A higher age was independently associated with a false-negative self-testing result with an odds ratio of 1.024 (95% CI 1.003-1.044). CONCLUSIONS: Self-testing using currently available RDT has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness.

Clinical performance and sample freeze-thaw stability of the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and lower respiratory specimens.

INTRODUCTION: Studies describing the performance characteristics of the cobas®6800 system for SARS-CoV-2 detection in deep respiratory specimens and freeze-thaw stability are limited. The current study compares the clinical performance of the automated SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 system to a lab-developed assay (LDA) and the cobas impact of freeze-thawing combined with lysis buffer. METHODS: Both retrospective and prospectively selected deep respiratory samples and oro- and nasopharyngeal samples in either E-swab® or GLY- were tested using the SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 System and compared to a lab developed assay. Additonally, SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability was assessed after one freeze-thaw cycle with or without lysis buffer. RESULTS: In total, 221 (58.3 %) oro- and nasopharyngeal swabs, 131 (34.6 %) deep respiratory specimens, and n = 25 (6.6 %) swabs of unknown origin were included to study clinical performance. Only 4 samples gave discrepant results, all being positive in the LDA and not the cobas®6800 system. For stability testing, 66 samples without and 110 with lysis buffer were included. No clinically significant difference was found in test results after one freeze-thaw cycle and addition of lysis buffer. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results as the LDA in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and deep respiratory specimens. Moreover, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results before and after a freeze-thaw cycle, with better preservation of low viral loads in lysis buffer.

COVID-19 in health-care workers in three hospitals in the south of the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: 10 days after the first reported case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the Netherlands (on Feb 27, 2020), 55 (4%) of 1497 health-care workers in nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We aimed to gain insight in possible sources of infection in health-care workers. METHODS: We did a cross-sectional study at three of the nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands. We screened health-care workers at the participating hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on clinical symptoms (fever or mild respiratory symptoms) in the 10 days before screening. We obtained epidemiological data through structured interviews with health-care workers and combined this information with data from whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples taken from health-care workers and patients. We did an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and patients. FINDINGS: Between March 2 and March 12, 2020, 1796 (15%) of 12 022 health-care workers were screened, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete and near-complete genome sequences from 50 health-care workers and ten patients. Most sequences were grouped in three clusters, with two clusters showing local circulation within the region. The noted patterns were consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community-acquired infections and local amplification in the community. INTERPRETATION: Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, our data do not support widespread nosocomial transmission as the source of infection in patients or health-care workers. FUNDING: EU Horizon 2020 (RECoVer, VEO, and the European Joint Programme One Health METASTAVA), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic

<h3>Importance</h3><p>On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring.</p><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms.</p><h3>Design, Setting, and Participants</h3><p>This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020.</p><h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3><p>The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years];15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms.</p><h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3><p>Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently.</p>