Alpha to Omicron: Disease Severity and Clinical Outcomes of Major SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

BACKGROUND: Four SARS-CoV-2 variants predominated in the United States since 2021. Understanding disease severity related to different SARS-CoV-2 variants remains limited. METHOD: Viral genome analysis was performed on SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolates circulating March 2021 through March, 2022 in Cleveland, Ohio. Major variants were correlated with disease severity and patient outcomes. RESULTS: 2779 patients identified with either alpha (N = 1153), gamma (N = 122), delta (N = 808) or omicron variants (N = 696) were selected for analysis. No difference in frequency of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death were found among alpha, gamma, and delta variants. However, patients with omicron infection were significantly less likely to be admitted to the hospital, require oxygen, or admission to the ICU (X2 = 12.8 p < 0.001, X2 = 21.6 p < 0.002, X2 = 9.6 p = 0.01, respectively). In patients whose vaccination status was known, a substantial number had breakthrough infections with delta or omicron variants (218/808 [26.9%] and 513/696 [73.7%], respectively). In breakthrough infections, hospitalization rate was similar regardless of variant by multivariate analysis. No difference in disease severity was identified between omicron sub-variants BA.1 and BA.2. CONCLUSIONS: Disease severity associated with alpha, gamma, and delta variants is comparable while omicron infections are significantly less severe. Breakthrough disease is significantly more common in patients with omicron infection.

Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Assessing and Interpreting Nucleic Acid and Antigen Tests.

In this review, we summarize the current status of nucleic acid and antigen testing required for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and antigen-detection (Ag) tests occupy a critically important frontline of defense against SARS-CoV-2 in clinical and public health settings. In early stages of this outbreak, we observed that identifying the causative agent of a new illness of unknown origin was greatly accelerated by characterizing the nucleic acid signature of the novel coronavirus. Results from nucleic acid sequencing led to the development of highly sensitive RT-PCR testing for use in clinical settings and to informing best practices for patient care, and in public health settings to the development of strategies for protecting populations. As the current COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, we have seen how NAAT performance has been used to guide and optimize specimen collection, inform patient triage decisions, reveal unexpected clinical symptoms, clarify risks of transmission within patient care facilities, and guide appropriate treatment strategies. For public health settings during the earliest stages of the pandemic, NAATs served as the only tool available for studying the epidemiology of this new disease by identifying infected individuals, studying transmission patterns, modeling population impacts, and enabling disease control organizations and governments to make challenging disease mitigation recommendations to protect the expanding breadth of populations at risk. With time, the nucleic acid signature has provided the information necessary to understand SARS-CoV-2 protein expression for further development of antigen-based point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests. The advent of massive parallel sequencing (ie, next generation sequencing) has afforded the characterization of this novel pathogen, informed the sequences best adapted for RT-PCR assays, guided vaccine production, and is currently used for tracking and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Genomic Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 Infection During the Initial Pandemic Wave and Association With Disease Severity.

Importance: Understanding of SARS-CoV-2 variants that alter disease outcomes are important for clinical risk stratification and may provide important clues to the complex virus-host relationship. Objective: To examine the association of identified SARS-CoV-2 variants, virus clades, and clade groups with disease severity and patient outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, viral genome analysis of clinical specimens obtained from patients at the Cleveland Clinic infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the initial wave of infection (March 11 to April 22, 2020) was performed. Identified variants were matched with clinical outcomes. Data analysis was performed from April to July 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and laboratory outcomes were matched with SARS-CoV-2 variants. Results: Specimens sent for viral genome sequencing originated from 302 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (median [interquartile range] age, 52.6 [22.8 to 82.5] years), of whom 126 (41.7%) were male, 195 (64.6%) were White, 91 (30.1%) required hospitalization, 35 (11.6%) needed ICU admission, and 17 (5.6%) died. From these specimens, 2531 variants (484 of which were unique) were identified. Six different SARS-CoV-2 clades initially circulated followed by a rapid reduction in clade diversity. Several variants were associated with lower hospitalization rate, and those containing 23403A>G (D614G Spike) were associated with increased survival when the patient was hospitalized (64 of 74 patients [86.5%] vs 10 of 17 patients [58.8%]; χ21 = 6.907; P = .009). Hospitalization and ICU admission were similar regardless of clade. Infection with Clade V variants demonstrated higher creatinine levels (median [interquartile range], 2.6 [-0.4 to 5.5] mg/dL vs 1.0 [0.2 to 2.2] mg/dL; mean creatinine difference, 2.9 mg/dL [95% CI, 0.8 to 5.0 mg/dL]; Kruskal-Wallis P = .005) and higher overall mortality rates (3 of 14 patients [21.4%] vs 17 of 302 patients [5.6%]; χ21 = 5.640; P = .02) compared with other variants. Infection by strains lacking the 23403A>G variant showed higher mortality in multivariable analysis (odds ratio [OR], 22.4; 95% CI, 0.6 to 5.6; P = .01). Increased variants of open reading frame (ORF) 3a were associated with decreased hospitalization frequency (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.96; P = .04), whereas increased variants of Spike (OR, 0.01; 95% CI, <0.01 to 0.3; P = .01) and ORF8 (OR, 0.03; 95% CI, <0.01 to 0.6; P = .03) were associated with increased survival. Conclusions and Relevance: Within weeks of SARS-CoV-2 circulation, a profound shift toward 23403A>G (D614G) specific genotypes occurred. Replaced clades were associated with worse clinical outcomes, including mortality. These findings help explain persistent hospitalization yet decreasing mortality as the pandemic progresses. SARS-CoV-2 clade assignment is an important factor that may aid in estimating patient outcomes.

Home testing for COVID-19: Benefits and limitations.

The home test kits for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection with Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization primarily use either isothermal nucleic acid amplification or antigen detection, and each test has advantages and limitations in terms of sensitivity and specificity, cost, results reporting, and results turnaround time. In clinical studies, these tests provide accurate positive results in symptomatic individuals, although negative results are less accurate. There are also accuracy concerns for positive results in asymptomatic individuals. These factors have implications for their clinical interpretation and use.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid contamination of surfaces on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward and intensive care unit.

On coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wards, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid was frequently detected on high-touch surfaces, floors, and socks inside patient rooms. Contamination of floors and shoes was common outside patient rooms on the COVID-19 wards but decreased after improvements in floor cleaning and disinfection were implemented.

Distribution of Transmission Potential During Nonsevere COVID-19 Illness.

BACKGROUND: Patients recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often continue to test positive for the causative virus by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) even after clinical recovery, thereby complicating return-to-work plans. The purpose of this study was to evaluate transmission potential of COVID-19 by examining viral load with respect to time. METHODS: Health care personnel (HCP) at Cleveland Clinic diagnosed with COVID-19, who recovered without needing hospitalization, were identified. Threshold cycles (Ct) for positive PCR tests were obtained and viral loads calculated. The association of viral load with days since symptom onset was examined in a multivariable regression model, which was reduced by stepwise backward selection to only keep variables significant at a level of .05. Viral loads by day since symptom onset were predicted using the model and transmission potential evaluated by examination of a viral load-time curve. RESULTS: Over 6 weeks, 230 HCP had 528 tests performed. Viral loads declined by orders of magnitude within a few days of symptom onset. The only variable significantly associated with viral load was time since onset of symptoms. Of the area under the curve (AUC) spanning symptom onset to 30 days, 96.9% lay within the first 7 days, and 99.7% within 10 days. Findings were very similar when validated using split-sample and 10-fold cross-validation. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with nonsevere COVID-19, viral loads in upper respiratory specimens peak by 2 or 3 days from symptom onset and decrease rapidly thereafter. The vast majority of the viral load-time AUC lies within 10 days of symptom onset.

Asymptomatic Patient Testing After 10:1 Pooling Using the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assay.

OBJECTIVES: Pool testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) preserves testing resources at the risk of missing specimens through specimen dilution. METHODS: To determine whether SARS-CoV-2 specimens would be missed after 10:1 pooling, we identified 10 specimens with midrange (ie, 25-34 cycles) and 10 with late (ie, >34-45 cycles) crossing threshold (Ct) values and tested these both neat and after 10:1 pooling. Final test results and Ct changes were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 17 of 20 specimens that contained SARS-CoV-2 were detected after 10:1 pooling with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Cepheid), rendering an 85% positive percentage of agreement. All 10 of 10 specimens with an undiluted Ct in the mid-Ct range were detected after 10:1 pooling, in contrast to 7 of 10 with an undiluted Ct in the late-Ct range. The overall Ct difference between the neat testing and the 10:1 pool was 2.9 cycles for the N2 gene target and 3 cycles for the E gene target. The N2 gene reaction was more sensitive than the E gene reaction, detecting 16 of 20 positive specimens after 10:1 pooling compared with 9 of 20 specimens. CONCLUSIONS: An 85% positive percentage of agreement was achieved, with only specimens with low viral loads being missed following 10:1 pooling. The average impact on both reverse transcription polymerase chain reactions within this assay was about 3 cycles.

A Comparison of Five SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Assays With Clinical Correlations.

OBJECTIVES: Comparative assessments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular assays that have been operationalized through the US Food and Drug Administration's Emergency Use Authorization process are warranted to assess real-world performance. Characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate are important to inform clinical use. METHODS: We compared five SARS-CoV-2 assays using nasopharyngeal and nasal swab specimens submitted in transport media; we enriched this cohort for positive specimens, since we were particularly interested in the sensitivity and false-negative rate. Performance of each test was compared with a composite standard. RESULTS: The sensitivities and false-negative rates of the 239 specimens that met inclusion criteria were, respectively, as follows: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2019 nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, 100% and 0%; TIB MOLBIOL/Roche z 480 Assay, 96.5% and 3.5%; Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid), 97.6% and 2.4%; Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (DiaSorin), 88.1% and 11.9%; and ID Now COVID-19 (Abbott), 83.3% and 16.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The assays that included a nucleic acid extraction followed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction were more sensitive than assays that lacked a full extraction. Most false negatives were seen in patients with low viral loads, as extrapolated from crossing threshold values.

A Direct Comparison of Enhanced Saliva to Nasopharyngeal Swab for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic Patients.

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and viral transport media, necessitating the search for alternate diagnostic specimens, such as saliva. We directly compared matched saliva and NPS specimens from symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19. An enhanced saliva specimen (i.e., strong sniff, elicited cough, and collection of saliva/secretions) was collected without transport medium prior to collection of NPS from 224 patients with symptoms deemed consistent with COVID-19. Both specimens were tested with the CDC 2019 nCoV real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel (4 February 2020 version), with the NPS result used as the reference standard. For the 216 patients included in the final analysis, there was 100% positive agreement (38/38 positive specimens) and 99.4% negative agreement (177/178 negative specimens). The one discrepant specimen had the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed in the saliva specimen using an alternate FDA EUA assay. The overall mean difference in cycle threshold (CT ) values for the positive NPS and saliva specimens was -3.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.78 to -1.44; P = 0.002). An enhanced saliva specimen performed as well as NPS for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients, although the overall mean viral load in saliva was lower.

Operationalizing COVID-19 testing: Who, what, when, where, why, and how.

The authors review the rationale behind and approaches to testing for COVID-19, the quality of currently available tests, the role of data analytics in strategizing testing, and using the electronic medical record and other programs designed to steward COVID-19 testing and follow-up of patients.

Association of Use of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers With Testing Positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Importance: The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is hotly debated. There have been recommendations to discontinue these medications, which are essential in the treatment of several chronic disease conditions, while, in the absence of clinical evidence, professional societies have advocated their continued use. Objective: To study the association between use of ACEIs/ARBs with the likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 and to study outcome data in subsets of patients taking ACEIs/ARBs who tested positive with severity of clinical outcomes of COVID-19 (eg, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and requirement for mechanical ventilation). Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. All patients tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12, 2020, were included. Exposures: History of taking ACEIs or ARBs at the time of COVID-19 testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Results of COVID-19 testing in the entire cohort, number of patients requiring hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and mechanical ventilation among those who tested positive. Results: A total of 18 472 patients tested for COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 49 (21) years, 7384 (40%) were male, and 12 725 (69%) were white. Of 18 472 patients who underwent COVID-19 testing, 2285 (12.4%) were taking either ACEIs or ARBs. A positive COVID-19 test result was observed in 1735 of 18 472 patients (9.4%). Among patients who tested positive, 421 (24.3%) were admitted to the hospital, 161 (9.3%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 111 (6.4%) required mechanical ventilation. Overlap propensity score weighting showed no significant association of ACEI and/or ARB use with COVID-19 test positivity (overlap propensity score-weighted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no association between ACEI or ARB use and COVID-19 test positivity. These clinical data support current professional society guidelines to not discontinue ACEIs or ARBs in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further study in larger numbers of hospitalized patients receiving ACEI and ARB therapy is needed to determine the association with clinical measures of COVID-19 severity.