Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 in semen, seminal plasma, and spermatozoa pellet of COVID-19 patients in the acute stage of infection.

To date, there is limited information about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen especially in the acute phase of the infection. While available data from cohort studies including a total of 342 patients in the acute or recovery phase of the infection are reassuring, one study mentioned detecting virus in the semen of 6/38 COVID-19 patients. Here we assessed SARS-CoV-2 presence in the semen of COVID-19 positive patients in the acute stage of infection, within 24 hours of the positive nasopharyngeal swabs. Semen, seminal plasma and spermatozoa pellet were screened for SARS-CoV-2 and manual or airborne contamination during semen sampling. Among the 32 COVID-19 volunteers, the median interval from the onset of symptoms to semen collection was 4 days [IQR: 0-8]. Only one presented positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in semen and seminal plasma fractions, although the spermatozoa pellet was negative. Viral cultures were all negative. We observed slightly higher concentrations of bacterial DNA in the SARS-CoV-2 positive specimen than in all negative samples. The bacteria identified neither confirm nor rule out contamination by oropharyngeal secretions during collection. SARS-CoV-2 was rarely present in semen during the acute phase of the disease. This very rare situation could be connected to oral or manual contamination during semen collection. The possible presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen calls for nasopharyngeal viral testing and strict hygiene protocols during semen collection before assisted reproductive attempts.

Performance evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), which is a closed, fully automated, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 21 other pathogens that cause respiratory disease. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with or suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 were collected and tested at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. Using the World Health Organisation-approved real-time-PCR assay developed by the Charité Institute of Virology as the reference, positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 189 negative and 88 positive samples were analyzed. QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 had an NPA of 90.48% (95% confidence interval (CI), 85.37%, 94.26%) and a PPA of 94.32% (95% CI, 87.24%, 98.13%). Co-infections were detected by QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 in 4/277 specimens. The methods exhibited comparable failure rates (23/307 [7.5%] vs. 6/298 [2.0%] for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and reference methods, respectively). The turnaround time was shorter for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 compared with the reference method (difference in mean -14:30 h [standard error, 0:03:23; 95% CI, -14:37, -14:24]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 shows good agreement with the reference assay, providing faster and accurate results for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

High-sensitivity SARS-CoV-2 group testing by digital PCR among symptomatic patients in hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide demand for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is still high as testing remains central to follow the disease spread and vaccine efficacy. Group testing has been proposed as a solution to expand testing capabilities but sensitivity concerns may limit its impact on the management of the pandemic. Digital PCR (RT-dPCR) has been shown to be highly sensitive and could help by providing larger testing capabilities without compromising sensitivity. METHODS: We implemented RT-dPCR based COVID-19 group testing on a commercially available system and assay (naica® system from Stilla Technologies) and investigated the sensitivity of the method in real life conditions of a university hospital in Paris, France, in May 2020. We tested the protocol in a direct comparison with reference RT-PCR testing on 448 samples split into groups of 8, 16 and 32 samples for RT-dPCR analysis. RESULTS: Individual RT-PCR testing identified 25/448 positive samples. Using 56 groups of 8, RT-dPCR identified 23 groups as positive, corresponding to 26 positive samples by individual PCR (positive percentage agreement 95.2% [95% confidence interval: 76.2-99.9%]) and including 2 samples not detected by individual RT-PCR but confirmed positive by further investigation. 15 of 28 groups of 16 tested positive, corresponding to 25 positive samples by individual PCR (positive percentage agreement 87.5% [95% confidence interval: 61.7-98.4%]). 14 groups of 32 were fully concordant with individual PCR testing but will need to be confirmed on larger datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed approach of group testing by digital PCR has similar diagnostic sensitivity compared to individual RT-PCR testing for group up to 16 samples. This approach reduces the quantity of reagent needed by up to 80% while reducing costs and increasing capabilities of testing up to 10-fold.

Long-Term Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infectiousness Among Three Immunocompromised Patients: From Prolonged Viral Shedding to SARS-CoV-2 Superinfection.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for stopping coronavirus disease 2019 patient isolation are mainly symptom-based, with isolation for 10 to 20 days depending on their condition. METHODS: In this study, we describe 3 deeply immunocompromised patients, each with different clinical evolutions. We observed (1) the patients' epidemiological, clinical, and serological data, (2) infectiousness using viral culture, and (3) viral mutations accumulated over time. RESULTS: Asymptomatic carriage, symptom resolution, or superinfection with a second severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 strain were observed, all leading to prolonged infectious viral shedding for several months. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding underlying mechanisms and frequency of prolonged infectiousness is crucial to adapt current guidelines and strengthen the use of systematic polymerase chain reaction testing before stopping isolation in immunocompromised populations.

Viral epidemiology and SARS-CoV-2 co-infections with other respiratory viruses during the first COVID-19 wave in Paris, France.

OBJECTIVES: Our work assessed the prevalence of co-infections in patients with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: All patients hospitalized in a Parisian hospital during the first wave of COVID-19 were tested by multiplex PCR if they presented ILI symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 806 patients (21%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 755 (20%) were positive for other respiratory viruses. Among the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 49 (6%) had viral co-infections. They presented similar age, symptoms, except for fever (P = .013) and headaches (P = .048), than single SARS-CoV-2 infections. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2-infected patients presenting viral co-infections had similar clinical characteristics and prognosis than patients solely infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Correction: Characteristics associated with COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses' infections at a single-center emergency department.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243261.].

Evaluation of three extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays: A feasible alternative approach with low technical requirements.

The worldwide demand for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing resulted in a shortage of diagnostic kits. RNA extraction step constitutes a major bottleneck to perform diagnostic. The aim of this study was to assess performances of different extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays compared to a reference RT-PCR assay. The panel of evaluation consisted of 94 samples: 69 positive and 25 negative for SARS-CoV-2 by reference RT-PCR. Three extraction-free RT-PCR assays were assessed: (i) PrimeDirect® Probe RT-qPCR Mix (Takara), (ii) PrimeScript®RT-PCR (Takara), and (iii) SARS-CoV-2 SANSURE®BIOTECH Novel Coronavirus (Sansure). The overall sensitivity of PrimeDirect, PrimeScript and Sansure assays was 55.1 %, 69.6 % and 69.6 %, respectively. The sensitivity increased among samples with Ct<30: 91.9 % (n = 34/37), 89.2 % (n = 33/37) and 94.6 % (n = 35/37) for PrimeDirect, PrimeScript and Sansure assays, respectively. The specificity was 88 %, 100 % and 100 % for PrimeDirect, PrimeScript and Sansure assays, respectively. In the present study, we showed a good sensitivity of extraction-free PCR assays, especially for high viral loads (Ct<30), except PrimeDirect that displayed imperfect sensitivity and specificity. Despite a lower sensitivity for low viral loads, extraction-free reagents can provide a valuable option, cheaper, easier and less reagent consuming for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic, especially in laboratory with lower experience and equipment for molecular assays.

Modeling SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics and association with mortality in hospitalized patients from the French COVID cohort.

The characterization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral kinetics in hospitalized patients and its association with mortality is unknown. We analyzed death and nasopharyngeal viral kinetics in 655 hospitalized patients from the prospective French COVID cohort. The model predicted a median peak viral load that coincided with symptom onset. Patients with age ≥65 y had a smaller loss rate of infected cells, leading to a delayed median time to viral clearance occurring 16 d after symptom onset as compared to 13 d in younger patients (P < 10-4). In multivariate analysis, the risk factors associated with mortality were age ≥65 y, male gender, and presence of chronic pulmonary disease (hazard ratio [HR] > 2.0). Using a joint model, viral dynamics after hospital admission was an independent predictor of mortality (HR = 1.31, P < 10-3). Finally, we used our model to simulate the effects of effective pharmacological interventions on time to viral clearance and mortality. A treatment able to reduce viral production by 90% upon hospital admission would shorten the time to viral clearance by 2.0 and 2.9 d in patients of age <65 y and ≥65 y, respectively. Assuming that the association between viral dynamics and mortality would remain similar to that observed in our population, this could translate into a reduction of mortality from 19 to 14% in patients of age ≥65 y with risk factors. Our results show that viral dynamics is associated with mortality in hospitalized patients. Strategies aiming to reduce viral load could have an effect on mortality rate in this population.

Characteristics associated with COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses' infections at a single-center emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Rapid identification of patients with high suspicion of COVID-19 will become a challenge with the co-circulation of multiple respiratory viruses (RVs). We have identified clinical or biological characteristics to help distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other RVs. METHODS: We used a prospective cohort including all consecutive patients admitted through the emergency department's (ED) and presenting respiratory symptoms from November 2019 to April 2020. Patients were tested for RV using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. RESULTS: 203/508 patients were positive for an RV during the non-SARS-CoV-2 epidemic period (November to February), and 268/596 patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic (March to April). Younger age, male gender, fever, absence of expectoration and absence of chronic lung disease were statistically associated with SARS-CoV-2 detection. Combining these variables allowed for the distinguishing of SARS-CoV-2 infections with 83, 65, 75 and 76% sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients' characteristics associated with a positive PCR are common between SARS-CoV-2 and other RVs, but a simple discrimination of strong SARS-CoV-2 suspicion with a limited set of clinical features seems possible. Such scoring could be useful but has to be prospectively evaluated and will not eliminate the need for rapid PCR assays.

Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel, the First Rapid Multiplex PCR Commercial Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.

In the race to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), efficient detection and triage of infected patients must rely on rapid and reliable testing. In this work, we performed the first evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel (QIAstat-SARS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This assay is the first rapid multiplex PCR (mPCR) assay, including SARS-CoV-2 detection, and is fully compatible with a non-PCR-trained laboratory or point-of-care (PoC) testing. This evaluation was performed using 69 primary clinical samples (66 nasopharyngeal swabs [NPS], 1 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid sample [BAL], 1 tracheal aspirate sample, and 1 bronchial aspirate sample) comparing SARS-CoV-2 detection with the currently WHO-recommended reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) (WHO-RT-PCR) workflow. Additionally, a comparative limit of detection (LoD) assessment was performed for QIAstat-SARS and WHO-RT-PCR using a quantified clinical sample. Compatibility of sample pretreatment for viral neutralization or viscous samples with the QIAstat-SARS system were also tested. The QIAstat-Dx respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel demonstrated a sensitivity comparable to that of the WHO-recommended assay with a limit of detection at 1,000 copies/ml. The overall percent agreement between QIAstat-Dx SARS and WHO-RT-PCR on 69 clinical samples was 97% with a sensitivity of 100% (40/40) and specificity at 93% (27/29). No cross-reaction was encountered for any other respiratory viruses or bacteria included in the panel. The QIAstat-SARS rapid multiplex PCR panel provides a highly sensitive, robust, and accurate assay for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2. This assay allows rapid decisions even in non-PCR-trained laboratory or point-of-care testing, allowing innovative organization.

SARS-CoV-2 detection in the lower respiratory tract of invasively ventilated ARDS patients.

BACKGROUND: Data on SARS-CoV-2 load in lower respiratory tract (LRT) are scarce. Our objectives were to describe the viral shedding and the viral load in LRT and to determine their association with mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We conducted a binational study merging prospectively collected data from two COVID-19 reference centers in France and Switzerland. First, we described the viral shedding duration (i.e., time to negativity) in LRT samples. Second, we analyzed viral load in LRT samples. Third, we assessed the association between viral presence in LRT and mortality using mixed-effect logistic models for clustered data adjusting for the time between symptoms' onset and date of sampling. RESULTS: From March to May 2020, 267 LRT samples were performed in 90 patients from both centers. The median time to negativity was 29 (IQR 23; 34) days. Prolonged viral shedding was not associated with age, gender, cardiac comorbidities, diabetes, immunosuppression, corticosteroids use, or antiviral therapy. The LRT viral load tended to be higher in non-survivors. This difference was statistically significant after adjusting for the time interval between onset of symptoms and date of sampling (OR 3.78, 95% CI 1.13-12.64, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The viral shedding in LRT lasted almost 30 days in median in critically ill patients, and the viral load in the LRT was associated with the 6-week mortality.

Performance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott).

The aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.

Removal of Remdesivir's Metabolite GS-441524 by Hemodialysis in a Double Lung Transplant Recipient with COVID-19.

Remdesivir has reported efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro and in vivo Drug-drug interactions limit therapeutic options in transplant patients. Remdesivir and its metabolite GS-441524 are excreted principally in urine. In intensive care unit (ICU) settings, in which multiple-organ dysfunctions can occur rapidly, hemodialysis may be a viable option for maintaining remdesivir treatment, while improving tolerance, by removing both remdesivir's metabolite (GS-441524) and sulfobutylether ß-cyclodextrin sodium (SEBCD). Additional studies may prove informative, particularly in the evaluations of therapeutic options for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

A comparison of four serological assays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human serum samples from different populations.

It is of paramount importance to evaluate the prevalence of both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and their differing antibody response profiles. Here, we performed a pilot study of four serological assays to assess the amounts of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples obtained from 491 healthy individuals before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, 51 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, 209 suspected cases of COVID-19 with mild symptoms, and 200 healthy blood donors. We used two ELISA assays that recognized the full-length nucleoprotein (N) or trimeric spike (S) protein ectodomain of SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we developed the S-Flow assay that recognized the S protein expressed at the cell surface using flow cytometry, and the luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) assay that recognized diverse SARS-CoV-2 antigens including the S1 domain and the carboxyl-terminal domain of N by immunoprecipitation. We obtained similar results with the four serological assays. Differences in sensitivity were attributed to the technique and the antigen used. High anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers were associated with neutralization activity, which was assessed using infectious SARS-CoV-2 or lentiviral-S pseudotype virus. In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, seroconversion and virus neutralization occurred between 5 and 14 days after symptom onset, confirming previous studies. Seropositivity was detected in 32% of mildly symptomatic individuals within 15 days of symptom onset and in 3% of healthy blood donors. The four antibody assays that we used enabled a broad evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and antibody profiling in different subpopulations within one region.

Pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir oral solution to treat COVID-19 in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: The combination lopinavir/ritonavir is recommended to treat HIV-infected patients at the dose regimen of 400/100 mg q12h, oral route. The usual lopinavir trough plasma concentrations are 3000-8000 ng/mL. A trend towards a 28 day mortality reduction was observed in COVID-19-infected patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. OBJECTIVES: To assess the plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and receiving lopinavir/ritonavir. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection included in the French COVID-19 cohort and treated with lopinavir/ritonavir were included. Lopinavir/ritonavir combination was administered using the usual adult HIV dose regimen (400/100 mg q12h, oral solution through a nasogastric tube). A half-dose reduction to 400/100 mg q24h was proposed if lopinavir Ctrough was >8000 ng/mL, the upper limit considered as toxic and reported in HIV-infected patients. Lopinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameters were determined after an intensive pharmacokinetic analysis. Biological markers of inflammation and liver/kidney function were monitored. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were first assessed in eight patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. Median (IQR) lopinavir Ctrough reached 27 908 ng/mL (15 928-32 627). After the dose reduction to 400/100 mg q24h, lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed in nine patients. Lopinavir Ctrough decreased to 22 974 ng/mL (21 394-32 735). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 infections, the oral administration of lopinavir/ritonavir elicited plasma exposure of lopinavir more than 6-fold the upper usual expected range. However, it remains difficult to safely recommend its dose reduction without compromising the benefit of the antiviral strategy, and careful pharmacokinetic and toxicity monitoring are needed.

Case report study of the first five COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir in France.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been identified as the virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak worldwide. Data on treatment are scare and parallels have been made between SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses. Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral with efficient in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. Evidence of clinical improvement in patients with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir is controversial. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical outcomes and virological monitoring of the first five COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit of Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France, for severe pneumonia related to SARS-CoV-2 and treated with remdesivir. Quantitative reverse transcription PCR was used to monitor SARS-CoV-2 in blood plasma and the lower and upper respiratory tract. Among the five patients treated, two needed mechanical ventilation and one needed high-flow cannula oxygen. A significant decrease in SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract was observed in most cases, but two patients died with active SARS-CoV-2 replication in the lower respiratory tract. Plasma samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in only one patient. Remdesivir was interrupted before the initialy planned duration in four patients, two because of alanine aminotransferase elevations (3 to 5 normal range) and two because of renal failure requiring renal replacement. This case series of five COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit treatment for respiratory distress and treated with remdesivir, highlights the complexity of remdesivir use in such critically ill patients.

Multicenter comparison of the Cobas 6800 system with the RealStar RT-PCR kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: RT-PCR testing is crucial in the diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of reliable and comparable PCR assays is a cornerstone to allow use of different PCR assays depending on the local equipment. In this work, we provide a comparison of the Cobas® (Roche) and the RealStar® assay (Altona). METHODS: Assessment of the two assays was performed prospectively in three reference Parisians hospitals, using 170 clinical samples. They were tested with the Cobas® assay, selected to obtain a distribution of cycle threshold (Ct) as large as possible, and tested with the RealStar assay with three largely available extraction platforms: QIAsymphony (Qiagen), MagNAPure (Roche) and NucliSENS-easyMag (BioMérieux). RESULTS: Overall, the agreement (positive for at least one gene) was 76 %. This rate differed considerably depending on the Cobas Ct values for gene E: below 35 (n = 91), the concordance was 99 %. Regarding the positive Ct values, linear regression analysis showed a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.88 and the Deming regression line revealed a strong correlation with a slope of 1.023 and an intercept of -3.9. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the mean difference (Cobas® minus RealStar®) was + 3.3 Ct, with a SD of + 2.3 Ct. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison, both RealStar® and Cobas® assays provided comparable qualitative results and a high correlation when both tests were positive. Discrepancies exist after 35 Ct and varied depending on the extraction system used for the RealStar® assay, probably due to a low viral load close to the detection limit of both assays.