Addressing Behavioral Health of the Diverse Older Adults in the Various Health Care Setting during COVID pandemia

During COVID-19 pandemia being in a “golden age” group, having chronic health conditions make people more susceptible to the virus. The need to socially distance creates the sense of isolation, affects older adults routines, mass transportation, and some “non-essential” social services. Those factors in addition to the uncertainty and fear COVID-19 creates, and the potential for older adults to be more vulnerable to the virus and higher mortality rates among older adults may exacerbate depression and anxiety for which effective and safe treatment interventions are required. Virtual partial hospitalization program offers affordable and convenient opportunity to address mental health needs of older adults. There were a number of challenges with transitioning to and utilizing a telehealth platform for psychiatric evaluation in the long term care setting during the COVID 19 pandemic. First, staffing of facilities was stretched during the pandemic, making facilitation of Tele visits difficult. Without staff present through the entire visit to sort out technical difficulties, repeat questions and instructions for patients with hearing difficulties, and help patients complete questionnaires, evaluation was significantly limited. Additionally, the restrictions in place to mitigate viral transmission to residents and staff played unique roles in the psychiatric population. Isolation, lack of intellectual stimulation though group activities/dining, and halted family visits contributed to depression, anxiety, and agitation. Compounded with limited access to staff for therapy and medical management, we certainly observed a decline in motivation and functioning in our patients. In sum, while telehealth was successfully used in many settings during the COVID 19 pandemic, unique challenges in the geriatric psychiatry population residing in long term care facilities made implementation difficult. Lack of in-person visits and staffing shortages may have also contributed to escalation of psychiatric symptoms. Offering tele-psychiatry to diverse VA older adult patient population appears to be a valuable option although especially in the rural areas may present some challenges including irregularities of the internet connection, limited equipment availability as well as limited proficiency of the patient's utilization of the various telehealth platforms. However with appropriate training and equipment supplies those challenges can be resolved.

Evaluating the potential for respiratory metagenomics to improve treatment of secondary infection and detection of nosocomial transmission on expanded COVID-19 intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Clinical metagenomics (CMg) has the potential to be translated from a research tool into routine service to improve antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic provides added impetus to realise these benefits, given the increased risk of secondary infection and nosocomial transmission of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) pathogens linked with the expansion of critical care capacity. METHODS: CMg using nanopore sequencing was evaluated in a proof-of-concept study on 43 respiratory samples from 34 intubated patients across seven intensive care units (ICUs) over a 9-week period during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. RESULTS: An 8-h CMg workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75-99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57-96%) for bacterial identification based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively. CMg sequencing reported the presence or absence of ß-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales that would modify the initial guideline-recommended antibiotics in every case. CMg was also 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for detecting Aspergillus fumigatus from 4 positive and 39 negative samples. Molecular typing using 24-h sequencing data identified an MDR-K. pneumoniae ST307 outbreak involving 4 patients and an MDR-C. striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs. CONCLUSION: CMg testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance. The provision of this technology in a service setting could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections. The potential to improve the initial targeted treatment and rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of MDR-pathogens justifies further expedited clinical assessment of CMg.

Resilient SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics workflows including viral heat inactivation.

There is a worldwide need for reagents to perform SARS-CoV-2 detection. Some laboratories have implemented kit-free protocols, but many others do not have the capacity to develop these and/or perform manual processing. We provide multiple workflows for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection in clinical samples by comparing several commercially available RNA extraction methods: QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAgen), RNAdvance Blood/Viral (Beckman) and Mag-Bind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (Omega Bio-tek). We also compared One-step RT-qPCR reagents: TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix (FastVirus, ThermoFisher Scientific), qPCRBIO Probe 1-Step Go Lo-ROX (PCR Biosystems) and Luna® Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit (Luna, NEB). We used primer-probes that detect viral N (EUA CDC) and RdRP. RNA extraction methods provided similar results, with Beckman performing better with our primer-probe combinations. Luna proved most sensitive although overall the three reagents did not show significant differences. N detection was more reliable than that of RdRP, particularly in samples with low viral titres. Importantly, we demonstrated that heat treatment of nasopharyngeal swabs at 70°C for 10 or 30 min, or 90°C for 10 or 30 min (both original variant and B 1.1.7) inactivated SARS-CoV-2 employing plaque assays, and had minimal impact on the sensitivity of the qPCR in clinical samples. These findings make SARS-CoV-2 testing portable in settings that do not have CL-3 facilities. In summary, we provide several testing pipelines that can be easily implemented in other laboratories and have made all our protocols and SOPs freely available at https://osf.io/uebvj/.

Comparative performance of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen tests and association with detection of infectious virus in clinical specimens: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Lateral flow devices (LFDs) for rapid antigen testing are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing, although their reduced sensitivity compared with PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is, therefore, essential for successful implementation. We evaluated six commercial LFDs and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. METHODS: In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we did a head-to-head comparison of six LFDs commercially available in the UK: Innova Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test, Spring Healthcare SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette, E25Bio Rapid Diagnostic Test, Encode SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Device, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Cassette, and SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Fluorescence Antigen Test. We estimated the specificities and sensitivities of the LFDs using stored naso-oropharyngeal swabs collected at St Thomas' Hospital (London, UK) for routine diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing by real-time RT-PCR (RT-rtPCR). Swabs were from inpatients and outpatients from all departments of St Thomas' Hospital, and from health-care staff (all departments) and their household contacts. SARS-CoV-2-negative swabs from the same population (confirmed by RT-rtPCR) were used for comparative specificity determinations. All samples were collected between March 23 and Oct 27, 2020. We determined the limit of detection (LOD) for each test using viral plaque-forming units (PFUs) and viral RNA copy numbers of laboratory-grown SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, LFDs were selected to assess the correlation of antigen test result with RT-rtPCR Ct values and positive viral culture in Vero E6 cells. This analysis included longitudinal swabs from five infected inpatients with varying disease severities. Furthermore, the sensitivities of available LFDs were assessed in swabs (n=23; collected from Dec 4, 2020, to Jan 12, 2021) confirmed to be positive (RT-rtPCR and whole-genome sequencing) for the B.1.1.7 variant, which was the dominant genotype in the UK at the time of study completion. FINDINGS: All LFDs showed high specificity (≥98·0%), except for the E25Bio test (86·0% [95% CI 77·9-99·9]), and most tests reliably detected 50 PFU/test (equivalent SARS-CoV-2 N gene Ct value of 23·7, or RNA copy number of 3 × 106/mL). Sensitivities of the LFDs on clinical samples ranged from 65·0% (55·2-73·6) to 89·0% (81·4-93·8). These sensitivities increased to greater than 90% for samples with Ct values of lower than 25 for all tests except the SureScreen fluorescence (SureScreen-F) test. Positive virus culture was identified in 57 (40·4%) of 141 samples; 54 (94·7%) of the positive cultures were from swabs with Ct values lower than 25. Among the three LFDs selected for detailed comparisons (the tests with highest sensitivity [Innova], highest specificity [Encode], and alternative technology [SureScreen-F]), sensitivity of the LFDs increased to at least 94·7% when only including samples with detected viral growth. Longitudinal studies of RT-rtPCR-positive samples (tested with Innova, Encode, and both SureScreen-F and the SureScreen visual [SureScreen-V] test) showed that most of the tests identified all infectious samples as positive. Test performance (assessed for Innova and SureScreen-V) was not affected when reassessed on swabs positive for the UK variant B.1.1.7. INTERPRETATION: In this comprehensive comparison of antigen LFDs and virus infectivity, we found a clear relationship between Ct values, quantitative culture of infectious virus, and antigen LFD positivity in clinical samples. Our data support regular testing of target groups with LFDs to supplement the current PCR testing capacity, which would help to rapidly identify infected individuals in situations in which they would otherwise go undetected. FUNDING: King's Together Rapid COVID-19, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Huo Family Foundation, UK Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre.

Development and evaluation of a nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing service for same day targeted treatment of bacterial respiratory infection in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the feasibility and impact of nanopore-based 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Np16S) service on antibiotic treatment for acute severe pneumonia on the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Speciation and sequencing accuracy of Np16S on isolates with bioinformatics pipeline optimisation, followed by technical evaluation including quality checks and clinical-reporting criteria analysing stored respiratory samples using single-sample flow cells. Pilot service comparing Np16S results with all routine respiratory tests and impact on same-day antimicrobial prescribing. RESULTS: Np16S correctly identified 140/167 (84%) isolates after 1h sequencing and passed quality control criteria including reproducibility and limit-of-detection. Sequencing of 108 stored respiratory samples showed concordance with routine culture in 80.5% of cases and established technical and clinical reporting criteria. A 10-week same-day pilot Np16S service analysed 45 samples from 37 patients with suspected community (n=15) or hospital acquired (n=30) pneumonia. Np16S showed concordance compared with all routine culture or molecular tests for 27 (82%) of 33 positive samples. It identified the causative pathogen in 32/33 (97%) samples and contributed to antimicrobial treatment changes for 30 patients (67%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates feasibility of providing a routine same-day nanopore sequencing service that makes a significant contribution to early antibiotic prescribing for bacterial pneumonia in the ICU.

Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans.

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in most infected individuals 10-15 d after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. However, due to the recent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in the human population, it is not known how long antibody responses will be maintained or whether they will provide protection from reinfection. Using sequential serum samples collected up to 94 d post onset of symptoms (POS) from 65 individuals with real-time quantitative PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we show seroconversion (immunoglobulin (Ig)M, IgA, IgG) in >95% of cases and neutralizing antibody responses when sampled beyond 8 d POS. We show that the kinetics of the neutralizing antibody response is typical of an acute viral infection, with declining neutralizing antibody titres observed after an initial peak, and that the magnitude of this peak is dependent on disease severity. Although some individuals with high peak infective dose (ID50 > 10,000) maintained neutralizing antibody titres >1,000 at >60 d POS, some with lower peak ID50 had neutralizing antibody titres approaching baseline within the follow-up period. A similar decline in neutralizing antibody titres was observed in a cohort of 31 seropositive healthcare workers. The present study has important implications when considering widespread serological testing and antibody protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2, and may suggest that vaccine boosters are required to provide long-lasting protection.

Comparative assessment of multiple COVID-19 serological technologies supports continued evaluation of point-of-care lateral flow assays in hospital and community healthcare settings.

There is a clear requirement for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, both as a complement to existing diagnostic capabilities and for determining community seroprevalence. We therefore evaluated the performance of a variety of antibody testing technologies and their potential use as diagnostic tools. Highly specific in-house ELISAs were developed for the detection of anti-spike (S), -receptor binding domain (RBD) and -nucleocapsid (N) antibodies and used for the cross-comparison of ten commercial serological assays-a chemiluminescence-based platform, two ELISAs and seven colloidal gold lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)-on an identical panel of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples and 50 pre-pandemic negatives. There was a wide variation in the performance of the different platforms, with specificity ranging from 82% to 100%, and overall sensitivity from 60.9% to 87.3%. However, the head-to-head comparison of multiple sero-diagnostic assays on identical sample sets revealed that performance is highly dependent on the time of sampling, with sensitivities of over 95% seen in several tests when assessing samples from more than 20 days post onset of symptoms. Furthermore, these analyses identified clear outlying samples that were negative in all tests, but were later shown to be from individuals with mildest disease presentation. Rigorous comparison of antibody testing platforms will inform the deployment of point-of-care technologies in healthcare settings and their use in the monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Real-world evaluation of a novel technology for quantitative simultaneous antibody detection against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in a cohort of patients presenting with COVID-19 syndrome.

An evaluation of a rapid portable gold-nanotechnology measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgA and IgG antibody concentrations against spike 1 (S1), spike 2 (S) and nucleocapsid (N) was conducted using serum samples from 74 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on admission to hospital, and 47 historical control patients from March 2019. 59 patients were RNA(+) and 15 were RNA(-). A serum (±) classification was derived for all three antigens and a quantitative serological profile was obtained. Serum(+) was identified in 30% (95% CI 11-48) of initially RNA(-) patients, in 36% (95% CI 17-54) of RNA(+) patients before 10 days, 77% (95% CI 67-87) between 10 and 20 days and 95% (95% CI 86-100) after 21 days. The patient-level diagnostic accuracy relative to RNA(±) after 10 days displayed 88% sensitivity (95% CI 75-95) and 75% specificity (95% CI 22-99), although specificity compared with historical controls was 100% (95%CI 91-100). This study provides robust support for further evaluation and validation of this novel technology in a clinical setting and highlights challenges inherent in assessment of serological tests for an emerging disease such as COVID-19.