Combining epidemiological data and whole genome sequencing to understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in a large tertiary care hospital during the first COVID-19 wave in The Netherlands focusing on healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare facilities have been challenged by the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission between healthcare workers (HCW) and patients. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, infections among HCW were observed, questioning infection prevention and control (IPC) measures implemented at that time. AIM: This study aimed to identify nosocomial transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 between HCW and patients in a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: All SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive HCW and patients identified between 1 March and 19 May 2020, were included in the analysis. Epidemiological data were collected from patient files and HCW contact tracing interviews. Whole genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 were generated using Nanopore sequencing (WGS). Epidemiological clusters were identified, whereafter WGS and epidemiological data were combined for re-evaluation of epidemiological clusters and identification of potential transmission clusters. HCW infections were further classified into categories based on the likelihood that the infection was acquired via nosocomial transmission. Secondary cases were defined as COVID-19 cases in our hospital, part of a transmission cluster, of which the index case was either a patient or HCW from our hospital. FINDINGS: The study population consisted of 293 HCW and 245 patients. Epidemiological data revealed 36 potential epidemiological clusters, with an estimated 222 (75.7%) HCW as secondary cases. WGS results were available for 195 HCW (88.2%) and 20 patients (12.8%) who belonged to an epidemiological cluster. Re-evaluation of the epidemiological clusters, with the available WGS data identified 31 transmission clusters with 65 (29.4%) HCW as secondary cases. Transmission clusters were all part of 18 (50.0%) previously determined epidemiological clusters, demonstrating that several larger outbreaks actually consisted, of several smaller transmission clusters. A total of 21 (7.2%) HCW infections were classified as from confirmed nosocomial, of which 18 were acquired from another HCW and 3 from a patient. CONCLUSION: The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCW could be attributed to community-acquired infection. Infections among HCW that could be classified as due to nosocomial transmission, were mainly caused by HCW-to-HCW transmission rather than patient-to-HCW transmission. It is important to recognize the uncertainties of cluster analyses based solely on epidemiological data.

Sewage surveillance system using urological wastewater: Key to COVID-19 monitoring?

Since December 2019, the emergence of a new Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome- coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a global coronavirus pandemic disease (COVID-19), with devastating consequences for all healthcare worldwide, including urological care. COVID-19 has led to concern among urological healthcare workers about viral presence, detection and routes of transmission during routine clinical practice. The potential presence of (active) virus in bodily fluids of COVID-19 patients remains a continuing topic of debate. Therefore, we highlight viral detection methods and review the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in urine, feces, and semen. Finally, we discuss how excretion of virus particles through urological bodily fluids might be pivotal to epidemiologic monitoring and control of the disease.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the omicron period: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performances of three commonly used antigen rapid diagnostic tests used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in the Omicron period in three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands, including 3600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex [Flowflex], MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST [CLINITEST]) to perform unsupervised at home. Diagnostic accuracies of each self-test were calculated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI, 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for CLINITEST. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. DISCUSSION: The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period were very low. Antigen rapid diagnostic test self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect a minority of infections at that point in time. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield, and individuals should be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.

Standardization of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques by Calibration and Quantification to the First WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Clinical decision-making regarding isolation of SARS-CoV-2 patients is usually based on semiquantitative cycle-threshold (Ct) values without standardization. However, not all molecular assays produce Ct values, and there is ongoing discussion about whether Ct values can be safely used for decision-making. In this study, we standardized two molecular assays which use different nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAAT): the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2/Flu (TMA) and Roche Cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 assays. We calibrated these assays against the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by using linear regression of log10 dilution series. These calibration curves were used to calculate viral loads for clinical samples. Clinical performance was assessed retrospectively using samples collected between January 2020 and November 2021, including known positives of the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus, the VOCs (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and omicron) and quality control panels. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis showed good correlations for SARS-CoV-2 between Panther TMA and Cobas 6800 when standardized viral loads were used. These standardized quantitative results can benefit clinical decision-making and standardization of infection control guidelines.

Rise and fall of SARS-CoV-2 variants in Rotterdam: Comparison of wastewater and clinical surveillance.

Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater (WW) is a promising tool for epidemiological surveillance, correlating not only viral RNA levels with the infection dynamics within the population, but also to viral diversity. However, the complex mixture of viral lineages in WW samples makes tracking of specific variants or lineages circulating in the population a challenging task. We sequenced sewage samples of 9 WW-catchment areas within the city of Rotterdam, used specific signature mutations from individual SARS-CoV-2 lineages to estimate their relative abundances in WW and compared them against those observed in clinical genomic surveillance of infected individuals between September 2020 and December 2021. We showed that especially for dominant lineages, the median of the frequencies of signature mutations coincides with the occurrence of those lineages in Rotterdam's clinical genomic surveillance. This, along with digital droplet RT-PCR targeting signature mutations of specific variants of concern (VOCs), showed that several VOCs emerged, became dominant and were replaced by the next VOC in Rotterdam at different time points during the study. In addition, single nucleotide variant (SNV) analysis provided evidence that spatio-temporal clusters can also be discerned from WW samples. We were able to detect specific SNVs in sewage, including one resulting in the Q183H amino acid change in the Spike gene, that was not captured by clinical genomic surveillance. Our results highlight the potential use of WW samples for genomic surveillance, increasing the set of epidemiological tools to monitor SARS-CoV-2 diversity.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: In the general population, illness after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is less severe compared with previous variants. Data on the disease burden of Omicron in immunocompromised patients are lacking. We investigated the clinical characteristics and outcome of a cohort of immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 caused by Omicron. METHODS: Solid organ transplant recipients, patients on anti-CD20 therapy, and allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients on immunosuppressive therapy infected with the Omicron variant, were included. Patients were contacted regularly until symptom resolution. Clinical characteristics of consenting patients were collected through their electronic patient files. To identify possible risk factors for hospitalization, a univariate logistic analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 114 consecutive immunocompromised patients were enrolled. Eighty-nine percent had previously received three mRNA vaccinations. While only one patient died, 23 (20%) required hospital admission for a median of 11 days. A low SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response (<300 BAU/mL) at diagnosis, higher age, being a lung transplant recipient, more comorbidities and a higher frailty were associated with hospital admission (all p < 0.01). At the end of follow-up, 25% had still not fully recovered. Of the 23 hospitalized patients, 70% had a negative and 92% a low IgG (<300 BAU/mL) antibody response at admission. Sotrovimab was administered to 17 of them, of which one died. CONCLUSIONS: While the mortality in immunocompromised patients infected with Omicron was low, hospital admission was frequent and the duration of symptoms often prolonged. Besides vaccination, other interventions are needed to limit the morbidity from COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients.

SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in secondary school settings in the Netherlands during fall 2020; silent circulation.

BACKGROUND: In fall 2020 when schools in the Netherlands operated under a limited set of COVID-19 measures, we conducted outbreaks studies in four secondary schools to gain insight in the level of school transmission and the role of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via air and surfaces. METHODS: Outbreak studies were performed between 11 November and 15 December 2020 when the wild-type variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infections within schools were identified through a prospective school surveillance study. All school contacts of cluster cases, irrespective of symptoms, were invited for PCR testing twice within 48 h and 4-7 days later. Combined NTS and saliva samples were collected at each time point along with data on recent exposure and symptoms. Surface and active air samples were collected in the school environment. All samples were PCR-tested and sequenced when possible. RESULTS: Out of 263 sampled school contacts, 24 tested SARS-CoV-2 positive (secondary attack rate 9.1%), of which 62% remained asymptomatic and 42% had a weakly positive test result. Phylogenetic analysis on 12 subjects from 2 schools indicated a cluster of 8 and 2 secondary cases, respectively, but also other distinct strains within outbreaks. Of 51 collected air and 53 surface samples, none were SARS-CoV-2 positive. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed within school SARS-CoV-2 transmission and substantial silent circulation, but also multiple introductions in some cases. Absence of air or surface contamination suggests environmental contamination is not widespread during school outbreaks.

Population-based screening in a municipality after a primary school outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant, the Netherlands, December 2020-February 2021.

An outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant (Pango lineage B.1.1.7) was detected at a primary school (School X) in Lansingerland, the Netherlands, in December 2020. The outbreak was studied retrospectively, and population-based screening was used to assess the extent of virus circulation and decelerate transmission. Cases were SARS-CoV-2 laboratory confirmed and were residents of Lansingerland (November 16th 2020 until February 22th 2021), or had an epidemiological link with School X or neighbouring schools. The SARS-CoV-2 variant was determined using variant PCR or whole genome sequencing. A questionnaire primarily assessed clinical symptoms. A total of 77 Alpha variant cases were found with an epidemiological link to School X, 16 Alpha variant cases linked to the neighbouring schools, and 146 Alpha variant cases among residents of Lansingerland without a link to the schools. The mean number of self-reported symptoms was not significantly different among Alpha variant infected individuals compared to non-Alpha infected individuals. The secondary attack rate (SAR) among Alpha variant exposed individuals in households was 52% higher compared to non-Alpha variant exposed individuals (p = 0.010), with the mean household age, and mean number of children and adults per household as confounders. Sequence analysis of 60 Alpha variant sequences obtained from cases confirmed virus transmission between School X and neighbouring schools, and showed that multiple introductions of the Alpha variant had already taken place in Lansingerland at the time of the study. The alpha variant caused a large outbreak at both locations of School X, and subsequently spread to neighbouring schools, and households. Population-based screening (together with other public health measures) nearly stopped transmission of the outbreak strain, but did not prevent variant replacement in the Lansingerland municipality.

Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population. METHODS: This large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference. RESULTS: Out of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests. CONCLUSIONS: The Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.

Community-based SARS-CoV-2 testing in low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam: Results from a pilot study.

Background: High incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and low testing uptake were reported in low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam. We aimed to improve willingness and access to testing by introducing community-based test facilities, and to evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid antigen detection test (RDT). Methods: Two to eleven test facilities operated consecutively in three low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam, offering the options of walk-in or appointments. Background characteristics were collected at intake and one nasopharyngeal swab was taken and processed using both RDT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Visitors were asked to join a survey for evaluation purposes. Results: In total, 19 773 visitors were tested - 9662 (48.9%) without an appointment. Walk-in visitors were older, lived more often in the proximity of the test facilities, and reported coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related symptoms less often than by-appointment visitors. For 67.7% of the visitors, this was the first time they got tested. A total of 1211 (6.1%) tested SARS-CoV-2-positive with RT-PCR, of whom 309 (25.5%) were asymptomatic. Test uptake increased among residents of the pilot neighbourhoods, especially in the older age groups, compared to people living in comparable neighbourhoods without community-based testing facilities. RDT detected asymptomatic individuals with 71.8% sensitivity, which was acceptable in this high prevalence setting. Visitors reported positive attitudes towards the test facilities and welcomed the easy access. Conclusions: Offering community-based SARS-CoV-2 testing seems a promising approach for increasing testing uptake among specific populations in low-income neighbourhoods.

Diagnostic accuracy of covid-19 rapid antigen tests with unsupervised self-sampling in people with symptoms in the omicron period: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period. DESIGN: Prospective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING: Three public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing. INTERVENTIONS: Participants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard. RESULTS: During phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ2 test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.

Admissions to a large tertiary care hospital and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction positivity: primary, contributing, or incidental COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 seem to show reduced clinical severity compared with earlier variants. Therefore, we aimed to assess and classify the cause of hospitalization for patients with COVID-19 identified with these Omicron variants in our hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients identified with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant between December 23, 2021, and February 27, 2022. Patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) upon clinical admission or during clinical admission were classified into four categories: (1) primary COVID-19, (2) admission-contributing COVID-19, (3) incidental COVID-19, and (4) undetermined COVID-19. RESULTS: We classified 172 COVID-19 Omicron patient admissions, including 151 adult and 21 pediatric patients. Of the adult patients, 45% were primary COVID-19 cases, 21% were admission-contributing, 31% were incidental, and 3% were undetermined. Of the pediatric patients, 19% were primary COVID-19 cases, 29% were admission-contributing, 38% were incidental, and 14% were undetermined. CONCLUSION: In the evolving landscape of COVID-19, the number of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should be interpreted with caution. The different patient categories should be considered in public health policy decision-making and when informing the general public.

Antigenic cartography of SARS-CoV-2 reveals that Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 are antigenically distinct.

The emergence and rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants may affect vaccine efficacy substantially. The Omicron variant termed BA.2, which differs substantially from BA.1 based on genetic sequence, is currently replacing BA.1 in several countries, but its antigenic characteristics have not yet been assessed. Here, we used antigenic cartography to quantify and visualize antigenic differences between early SARS-CoV-2 variants (614G, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Zeta, Delta, and Mu) using hamster antisera obtained after primary infection. We first verified that the choice of the cell line for the neutralization assay did not affect the topology of the map substantially. Antigenic maps generated using pseudo-typed SARS-CoV-2 on the widely used VeroE6 cell line and the human airway cell line Calu-3 generated similar maps. Maps made using authentic SARS-CoV-2 on Calu-3 cells also closely resembled those generated with pseudo-typed viruses. The antigenic maps revealed a central cluster of SARS-CoV-2 variants, which grouped on the basis of mutual spike mutations. Whereas these early variants are antigenically similar, clustering relatively close to each other in antigenic space, Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 have evolved as two distinct antigenic outliers. Our data show that BA.1 and BA.2 both escape vaccine-induced antibody responses as a result of different antigenic characteristics. Thus, antigenic cartography could be used to assess antigenic properties of future SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that emerge and to decide on the composition of novel spike-based (booster) vaccines.

From more testing to smart testing: data-guided SARS-CoV-2 testing choices, the Netherlands, May to September 2020.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays are more sensitive than rapid antigen detection assays (RDT) and can detect viral RNA even after an individual is no longer infectious. RDT can reduce the time to test and the results might better correlate with infectiousness.AimWe assessed the ability of five RDT to identify infectious COVID-19 cases and systematically recorded the turnaround time of RT-PCR testing.MethodsSensitivity of RDT was determined using a serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 stock with known viral RNA concentration. The probability of detecting infectious virus at a given viral load was calculated using logistic regression of viral RNA concentration and matched culture results of 78 specimens from randomly selected non-hospitalised cases. The probability of each RDT to detect infectious cases was calculated as the sum of the projected probabilities for viral isolation success for every viral RNA load found at the time of diagnosis in 1,739 confirmed non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases.ResultsThe distribution of quantification cycle values and estimated RNA loads for patients reporting to drive-through testing was skewed to high RNA loads. With the most sensitive RDT (Abbott and SD Biosensor), 97.30% (range: 88.65-99.77) of infectious individuals would be detected. This decreased to 92.73% (range: 60.30-99.77) for Coris BioConcept and GenBody, and 75.53% (range: 17.55-99.77) for RapiGEN. Only 32.9% of RT-PCR results were available on the same day as specimen collection.ConclusionThe most sensitive RDT detected infectious COVID-19 cases with high sensitivity and may considerably improve containment through more rapid isolation and contact tracing.

Clinical evaluation of the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen rapid test with symptomatic and asymptomatic, non-hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Performance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms. METHOD: All eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks. RESULTS: We could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test. CONCLUSION: Overall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.

Diminished amplification of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab in a commercial dual-target qRT-PCR diagnostic assay.

Here we describe a SARS-CoV-2 variant with diminished amplification of the ORF ORF1ab target in the Cobas® dual-target SARS-CoV-2 assay resulting in a discrepancy of Ct-values (Ct-value 20.7 for the E-gene and Ct-value 30.2 for ORF1ab). Five unique nucleotide mutations were identified in ORF1ab: C11450A (nsp10) C14178T (RdRp), G15006T (RdRp), G18394T (Hel), and G20995T (Hel). This case highlights the importance of surveillance of genomic regions used in molecular diagnostics and the importance of the public release of target regions used to update commercial and in-house developed SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests. This work underpins the importance of using dual-targets in molecular diagnostic assays to limit the change of false-negative results due to primer and/or probe mismatches.

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.

Author Correction: Rapid SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing and analysis for informed public health decision-making in the Netherlands.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Droplet digital RT-PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 signature mutations of variants of concern in wastewater.

Wastewater surveillance has shown to be a valuable and efficient tool to obtain information about the trends of COVID-19 in the community. Since the recent emergence of new variants, associated with increased transmissibility and/or antibody escape (variants of concern), there is an urgent need for methods that enable specific and timely detection and quantification of the occurrence of these variants in the community. In this study, we demonstrate the use of RT-ddPCR on wastewater samples for specific detection of mutation N501Y. This assay enabled simultaneous enumeration of lineage B.1.351 (containing the 501Y mutation) and Wild Type (WT, containing 501N) SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Detection of N501Y was possible in samples with mixtures of WT with low proportions of B.1.351 (0.5%) and could accurately determine the proportion of N501Y and WT in mixtures of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The application to raw sewage samples from the cities of Amsterdam and Utrecht demonstrated that this method can be applied to wastewater samples. The emergence of N501Y in Amsterdam and Utrecht wastewater aligned with the emergence of B.1.1.7 as causative agent of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, indicating that RT-ddPCR of wastewater samples can be used to monitor the emergence of the N501Y mutation in the community. It also indicates that RT-ddPCR could be used for sensitive and accurate monitoring of current (like K417N, K417T, E484K, L452R) or future mutations present in SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Monitoring these mutations can be used to obtain insight in the introduction and spread of VOC and support public health decision-making regarding measures to limit viral spread or allocation of testing or vaccination.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure. DESIGN: Prospective cross sectional study. SETTING: Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness. RESULTS: Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness.