Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
J Infect Dis ; 226(10): 1743-1752, 2022 Nov 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2121302

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Laboratory screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a key mitigation measure to avoid the spread of infection among recruits starting basic combat training in a congregate setting. Because viral nucleic acid can be detected persistently after recovery, we evaluated other laboratory markers to distinguish recruits who could proceed with training from those who were infected. METHODS: Recruits isolated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were serially tested for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic ribonucleic acid (sgRNA), and viral load (VL) by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and for anti- SARS-CoV-2. Cluster and quadratic discriminant analyses of results were performed. RESULTS: Among 229 recruits isolated for COVID-19, those with a RT-PCR cycle threshold >30.49 (sensitivity 95%, specificity 96%) or having sgRNA log10 RNA copies/mL <3.09 (sensitivity and specificity 96%) at entry into isolation were likely SARS-CoV-2 uninfected. Viral load >4.58 log10 RNA copies/mL or anti-SARS-CoV-2 signal-to-cutoff ratio <1.38 (VL: sensitivity and specificity 93%; anti-SARS-CoV-2: sensitivity 83%, specificity 79%) had comparatively lower sensitivity and specificity when used alone for discrimination of infected from uninfected. CONCLUSIONS: Orthogonal laboratory assays used in combination with RT-PCR may have utility in determining SARS-CoV-2 infection status for decisions regarding isolation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Sensitivity and Specificity , RNA , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
2.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0276729, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109325

ABSTRACT

Combining diagnostic specimens into pools has been considered as a strategy to augment throughput, decrease turnaround time, and leverage resources. This study utilized a multi-parametric approach to assess optimum pool size, impact of automation, and effect of nucleic acid amplification chemistries on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pooled samples for surveillance testing on the Hologic Panther Fusion® System. Dorfman pooled testing was conducted with previously tested SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal samples using Hologic's Aptima® and Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization assays. A manual workflow was used to generate pool sizes of 5:1 (five samples: one positive, four negative) and 10:1. An automated workflow was used to generate pool sizes of 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 8:1 and 10:1. The impact of pool size, pooling method, and assay chemistry on sensitivity, specificity, and lower limit of detection (LLOD) was evaluated. Both the Hologic Aptima® and Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assays demonstrated >85% positive percent agreement between neat testing and pool sizes ≤5:1, satisfying FDA recommendation. Discordant results between neat and pooled testing were more frequent for positive samples with CT>35. Fusion® CT (cycle threshold) values for pooled samples increased as expected for pool sizes of 5:1 (CT increase of 1.92-2.41) and 10:1 (CT increase of 3.03-3.29). The Fusion® assay demonstrated lower LLOD than the Aptima® assay for pooled testing (956 vs 1503 cp/mL, pool size of 5:1). Lowering the cut-off threshold of the Aptima® assay from 560 kRLU (manufacturer's setting) to 350 kRLU improved the assay sensitivity to that of the Fusion® assay for pooled testing. Both Hologic's SARS-CoV-2 assays met the FDA recommended guidelines for percent positive agreement (>85%) for pool sizes ≤5:1. Automated pooling increased test throughput and enabled automated sample tracking while requiring less labor. The Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assay, which demonstrated a lower LLOD, may be more appropriate for surveillance testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , RNA, Viral/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Automation , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(9): ofab407, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405049

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Significant variability exists in the application of infection control policy throughout the US Army initial entry training environment. To generate actionable information for the prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission among new recruits, active enhanced surveillance was conducted for evidence of and exposure to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. METHODS: We serially tested recruits with a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 and/or total antibody to SARS-CoV-2 tests at days 0, 14, and week 10 upon arrival for basic combat training at a location in the Southern United States. RESULTS: Among 1403 recruits who were enrolled over a 6-week period from August 25 through October 11, 2020, 84 recruits tested positive by RT-PCR, with more than half (55%, 46/84) testing positive at arrival and almost two-thirds (63%, 53/84) also testing seropositive at arrival. Similarly, among an overall 146 recruits who tested seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 during the period of observation, a majority (86%) tested seropositive at arrival; no hospitalizations were observed among seropositive recruits, and antibody response increased at week 10. CONCLUSIONS: These findings that suggest serological testing may complement current test-based measures and provide another tool to incorporate in COVID-19 mitigation measures among trainees in the US Army.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL