How acceptable is rapid whole genome sequencing for infectious disease management in hospitals? Perspectives of those involved in managing nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Structured summary Background Whole genome sequencing (WGS) for managing healthcare associated infections (HCAIs) has developed considerably through experiences with SARS-CoV-2. We interviewed various healthcare professionals (HCPs) with direct experience of using WGS in hospitals (within the COG-UK Hospital Onset COVID-19 Infection (HOCI) study) to explore its acceptability and future use. Method An exploratory, cross-sectional, qualitative design employed semi-structured interviews with 39 diverse HCPs between December 2020 and June 2021. Participants were recruited from five sites within the larger clinical study of a novel genome sequencing reporting tool for SARS-CoV-2 (the HOCI study). All had experience, in their diverse roles, of using sequencing data to manage nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis identified themes exploring aspects of the acceptability of sequencing. Findings The analysis highlighted the overall acceptability of rapid WGS for infectious disease using SARS-CoV-2 as a case study. Diverse professionals were largely very positive about its future use and believed that it could become a valuable and routine tool for managing HCAIs. We identified three key themes ‘1) ‘Proof of concept achieved’; 2) ‘Novel insights and implications’; and 3) ‘Challenges and demands’. Conclusion Our qualitative analysis, drawn from five diverse hospitals, shows the broad acceptability of rapid sequencing and its potential. Participants believed it could and should become an everyday technology capable of being embedded within typical hospital processes and systems. However, its future integration into existing healthcare systems will not be without challenges (e.g., resource, multi-level change) warranting further mixed methods research.

Increasing Rates of Intensive Care Unit Bloodstream Infections During the Second COVID-19 Pandemic Wave, Particularly Primary Endogenous Enterococcus faecium, with High Crude Mortality and Associated with Introduction of Immunomodulatory Therapy (preprint)

Background: Reports indicate that COVID-19 patients have more bloodstream infections (BSI) on the intensive care unit (ICU) potentially due to lapses in infection control practice or other factors.Methods: Retrospective single-site study of ICU-BSIs in mechanically ventilated (MV) COVID-19 patients during the first pandemic year. Clinical, demographic and laboratory data including targeted pathogen genome sequencing was analysed during first (March 13th - May 31st 2020) and second (October 1st 2020 - March 15th 2021) pandemic waves.Findings: There were 305 MV-ICU patients in wave one and 440 in wave two with peak occupancy of 113 and 155 patients, respectively. The BSI rate was higher during both waves than pre-pandemic, but more in wave-two than wave-one, particularly during the first 28 days on ICU (14.1 vs. 9.4/1000 bed days; p=0.03) and with E. faecium (3.57 vs. 0.47/1000 bed days; p=0.0067). 22/28 (77%) of E. faecium BSIs had no microbiologically definable focus and the high wave-two rate could not be explained by transmission. Wave-two BSI-patients received more corticosteroids and tocilizumab and had higher crude hospital mortality compared with non-BSI patients (41% vs. 21% p<0.0001), a phenomenon not seen in wave one (32% vs. 27% p=0.551). Interpretation: MV-COVID-19 patients had a greater BSI-burden in wave two associated with the emergence of primary endogenous E. faecium. Identifying mechanisms and causal links between admission COVID-19 disease severity, immunomodulation, BSI and death could help identify new approaches to improving outcomes for COVID-19 patients.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants by Abbott molecular, antigen, and serological tests (preprint)

Background Viral diversity presents an ongoing challenge for diagnostic tests, which need to accurately detect all circulating variants. The Abbott Global Surveillance program monitors severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and their impact on diagnostic test performance. Objectives To evaluate the capacity of Abbott molecular, antigen, and serologic assays to detect the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and the P.1 variants. Study design Virus variant culture stock dilutions (B.1.1.7, BEI NR-54011; B.1.351, BEI NR-54008 and 54009; P.1, BEI NR-54982) and clinical samples from patients with confirmed B.1.1.7 variant infection were run on the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19, m 2000 RealTi m e SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex molecular assays; the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device; and the ARCHITECT/Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG and AdviseDx IgM assays, Panbio COVID-19 IgG assay, and ARCHITECT/Alinity i AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay. Results Cultured virus stocks and B.1.1.7 clinical samples were detected with molecular, antigen, and serologic assays in the expected ranges, confirming in silico predictions. The ratio between genome equivalents (GE) and calculated median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ) were 31-to 83-fold higher for B.1.1.7 cultures compared to B.1.351 and P.1 cultures, demonstrating that GE are more consistent units between cultures than TCID 50 . Conclusions Abbott molecular and antigen assays effectively detect B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variant infections and Abbott serologic assays detect B.1.1.7 antibodies in patient sera. Future studies with SARS-CoV-2 virus cultures should use quantitative viral load values to compare detection of variants. Highlights Abbott SARS-CoV-2 molecular and antigen assays detect B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variants Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays detect B.1.1.7 antibodies in recovered patient sera Quantitation of viral load in genome equivalents allows comparison of assay performance

Clinical Outcomes of Patients With and Without HIV Hospitalised with COVID-19 in England During the Early Stages of the Pandemic: A Matched Retrospective Multicentre Analysis (RECEDE-C19 Study) (preprint)

Background: It is unclear from epidemiological data for COVID-19 infections, whether people living with HIV (PLWH) have a different outcomes compared to the general population. We conducted a multi-centre, retrospective matched cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive hospital inpatients analysed by HIV-status.Methods: HIV-negative patients were matched to PLWH admitted to hospital before 31 st May 2020, with a 3:1 ratio by: hospital site, SARS-CoV-2 test date +/- 7 days, age +/- 5 years, gender, and index of multiple deprivation decile (IMDD) +/- 1. The primary objective was clinical improvement (≥2-point improvement on a 7-point ordinal scale) or hospital discharge by day 28, whichever was earlier.Results: 68 PLWH and 181 HIV-negative comparators were included. After adjustment for ethnicity, frailty, baseline hypoxia, duration of symptoms prior to baseline, body mass index categories, and comorbidities (hypertension, chronic cardiac disease, chronic lung disease, active malignancy, diabetes, and chronic renal disease), the effect size of HIV status was not associated with time to clinical improvement or discharge from hospital (aHR 0.70, 95%CI 0.43, 1.17; p=0.18), despite unadjusted hazards of PLWH achieving the primary outcome being 43% lower (p=0.005). Baseline frailty (aHR=0.79; 95%CI 0.65, 0.95; p=0.011), malignancy (aHR=0.37; 95%CI 0.17, 0.82; p=0.014) remained associated with poorer outcomes. PLWH were more likely of black and minority ethnicities (75.0% vs 48.6%, p=0.0002), higher median clinical frailty score (3 IQR 2-5 vs 2 IQR 1-4, p=0.0069), higher proportion of active malignancy (14.4% vs 9.9%, p=0.29). Median body mass index (BMI) was lower amongst PLWH (27.7 IQR 23.9-32.3 vs 29.4 IQR 24.7-34.3, p=0.19). Median CD4 count of PLWH was 352cells/µL (IQR 235-619) and 95.7% had suppressed viral loads <200copies/mL, 63/68 (92.3%) were taking antiretroviral therapy.Conclusions: Differences in clinical outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalisations in PLWH may be due to other important factors including increased frailty and comorbidities such as malignancies, rather than HIV-status alone.Funding Statement: This study has not received any funding sources.Declaration of Interests: MJL has received grants and honoraria from Gilead Sciences and Viiv Healthcare not related to this work. SF has received research grants to her institution from NIH, MRC, BMGF. JT has received support for virtual conference registration from ViiV Healthcare and research grants from the Medical Research Council and the British HIV Association not related to this work. CvH has received educational grants, conference support and advisory board fees from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead Sciences, MSC not related to this work. MP reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from QIAGEN, outside the submitted work. MP is supported by a NIHR Development and Skills Enhancement Award (NIHR301192) and in receipt of funding from UKRI / MRC (MR/V027549/1). He acknowledges the support from UKRI, the NIHR Leicester BRC and NIHR ARC East Midlands. No other competing interests, financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work, or other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work have been reported by other authors.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval was granted by the UK Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/HRA/2278).

Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

Antibody (Ab) responses to SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in most infected individuals 10-15 days following the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. However, due to the recent emergence of this virus in the human population it is not yet known how long these Ab responses will be maintained or whether they will provide protection from re-infection. Using sequential serum samples collected up to 94 days post onset of symptoms (POS) from 65 RT-qPCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, we show seroconversion in >95% of cases and neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses when sampled beyond 8 days POS. We demonstrate that the magnitude of the nAb response is dependent upon the disease severity, but this does not affect the kinetics of the nAb response. Declining nAb titres were observed during the follow up period. Whilst some individuals with high peak ID50 (>10,000) maintained titres >1,000 at >60 days POS, some with lower peak ID50 had titres approaching baseline within the follow up period. A similar decline in nAb titres was also observed in a cohort of seropositive healthcare workers from Guys and St Thomas Hospitals. We suggest that this transient nAb response is a feature shared by both a SARS-CoV-2 infection that causes low disease severity and the circulating seasonal coronaviruses that are associated with common colds. This study has important implications when considering widespread serological testing, Ab protection against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the durability of vaccine protection.