Seroconversion after a third COVID-19 vaccine is affected by rituximab dose but persistence is not in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with (ultra-)low dose rituximab (RTX), we investigated (1) the association of dosing and timing of rituximab (RTX) on seroconversion after third COVID-19 vaccination, and (2) persistence of humoral response after two-dose vaccination. METHODS: In this monocentre observational study, patients from the COVAC-cohort were included in the third vaccine analysis if humoral response was obtained 2-6 weeks after third vaccination in previous non-responders, and in the persistence analysis if a follow-up humoral response was obtained before third vaccination in previous responders. Dichotomization between 'positive' and 'negative' response was based on the assay cut-off. The association between latest RTX dose before first vaccination, timing between latest rituximab and vaccination, and response was analysed with univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 196 patients in the cohort, 98 were included in the third vaccine analysis and 23 in the persistence analysis. Third vaccination response was 19/98 (19%) and higher for 200 mg RTX users (5/13, 38%) than 500 and 1000 mg (7/37, 19% and 7/48, 15%). Non-significant trends were seen for higher response with lower dosing (200 versus 1000 mg: OR 3.66, 95% CI 0.93-14.0) and later timing (per month since infusion: OR 1.16, 0.97-1.35). Humoral response persisted in 96% (22/23) and in 89% (8/9) of patients who received RTX between the two measurements. CONCLUSION: Repeated vaccination as late as possible after the lowest RTX dose possible seems the best vaccination strategy. A once positive humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination persists irrespective of intercurrent rituximab infusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, https://www.trialregister.nl/, NL9342.

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.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA in exhaled air of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Knowledge about contagiousness is key to accurate management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Epidemiological studies suggest that in addition to transmission through droplets, aerogenic SARS-CoV-2 transmission contributes to the spread of infection. However, the presence of virus in exhaled air has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. In pandemic situations low tech disposable and user-friendly bedside devices are required, while commercially available samplers are unsuitable for application in patients with respiratory distress. We included 49 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and used a disposable modular breath sampler to measure SARS-CoV-2 RNA load in exhaled air samples and compared these to SARS-CoV-2 RNA load of combined nasopharyngeal throat swabs and saliva. Exhaled air sampling using the modular breath sampler has proven feasible in a clinical COVID-19 setting and demonstrated viral detection in 25% of the patients.

Humoral response to coronavirus disease-19 vaccines is dependent on dosage and timing of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Humoral response to vaccines in RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX) in standard dosages (≥1000 mg) is decreased. Ultra-low dosages (500 or 200 mg) may have better response. Also, timing after latest RTX infusion may be an important variable. We aimed to investigate the influence of RTX dosage and timing on response to COVID-19 vaccination in RA patients. METHODS: A single-centre observational study (n = 196) investigated the humoral response, measured by total Ig anti-COVID-19 assay (positive response ≥1.1), 2-6 weeks after complete COVID-19 vaccination. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to study the effect of RTX dosage and time between latest rituximab and vaccination on response, adjusting for age and methotrexate use. RESULTS: After two-dose vaccination, the response rate was significantly better for patients receiving 200 mg (n = 31, 45%) rituximab compared with 1000 mg (n = 98, 26%; odds ratio 3.07, 95% CI 1.14-8.27) and for each additional month between latest rituximab and vaccination (OR 1.67, 1.39-2.01). CONCLUSION: Both increased time between latest rituximab infusion and complete vaccination, and 200 mg as latest dose were associated with a better response to COVID-19 vaccination and should be considered when trying to increase vaccine response after rituximab in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, https://www.trialregister.nl/, NL9342.

A method comparison study of the high throughput automated HISCL® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay using nasopharyngeal swab samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects against conventional RT-PCR.

Our study aim was to evaluate the performance of the automated Sysmex HISCL® severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen assay against reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We tested 277 remnant frozen nasopharyngeal swab samples, stored in universal transport medium (UTM), yielding a sensitivity of 94.9% against historical RT-PCR results with cycle threshold (Ct ) < 30, and a sensitivity of 76.7% for Ct < 35, and specificity of 100% (all Ct values) confirming compatibility of UTM-diluted samples with the assay system. Thereafter, we prospectively collected 141 nasopharyngeal swab samples in UTM from healthcare workers and 1369 paired swabs (400 UTM; 969 dry) from individuals at a public health testing center, with the first swab (UTM) reserved for RT-PCR, yielding a positivity rate of 4.6%. HISCL assay performance using UTM swabs was superior to dry swabs, with a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.5%-100%) at Ct < 30 versus 92.3% (95%CI 81.5%-97.9%), and a specificity of 99.3% (95% CI 98.1-99.89) against 83.3% (95%CI 80.7%-85.6%). We conclude that this antigen assay is suitable for high throughput facilities where the primary indication for testing is to rule out infection with low RT-PCR Ct values (proxy for high viral loads) to curb viral spread.

SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing using reverse complement PCR: For easy, fast and accurate outbreak and variant analysis.

During the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic reports of mutations with effects on spreading and vaccine effectiveness emerged. Large scale mutation analysis using rapid SARS-CoV-2 Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is often unavailable but could support public health organizations and hospitals in monitoring transmission and rising levels of mutant strains. Here we report a novel WGS technique for SARS-CoV-2, the EasySeq™ RC-PCR SARS-CoV-2 WGS kit. By applying a reverse complement polymerase chain reaction (RC-PCR), an Illumina library preparation is obtained in a single PCR, thereby saving time, resources and facilitating high-throughput screening. Using this WGS technique, we evaluated SARS-CoV-2 diversity and possible transmission within a group of 173 patients and healthcare workers (HCW) of the Radboud university medical center during 2020. Due to the emergence of variants of concern, we screened SARS-CoV-2 positive samples in 2021 for identification of mutations and lineages. With use of EasySeq™ RC-PCR SARS-CoV-2 WGS kit we were able to obtain reliable results to confirm outbreak clusters and additionally identify new previously unassociated links in a considerably easier workaround compared to current methods. Furthermore, various SARS-CoV-2 variants of interest were detected among samples and validated against an Oxford Nanopore sequencing amplicon strategy which illustrates this technique is suitable for surveillance and monitoring current circulating variants.

Interferon gamma immunotherapy in five critically ill COVID-19 patients with impaired cellular immunity: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shedding has been described in immunocompromised coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, resulting in protracted disease and poor outcome. Specific therapy to improve viral clearance and outcome for this group of patients is currently unavailable. METHODS: Five critically ill COVID-19 patients with severe defects in cellular immune responses, high SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA loads, and no respiratory improvement were treated with interferon gamma, 100 µg subcutaneously, thrice weekly. Bronchial secretion was collected every 48 h for routine diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and viral culture. FINDINGS: Interferon gamma administration was followed by a rapid decline in SARS-CoV-2 load and a positive-to-negative viral culture conversion. Four patients recovered, and no signs of hyperinflammation were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Interferon gamma may be considered as adjuvant immunotherapy in a subset of immunocompromised COVID-19 patients. FUNDING: A.v.L. and R.v.C. are supported by National Institutes of Health (R01AI145781). G.J.O. and R.P.v.R. are supported by a VICI grant (016.VICI.170.090) from the Dutch Research Council (NWO). W.F.A. is supported by a clinical fellowship grant (9071561) of Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. M.G.N. is supported by an ERC advanced grant (833247) and a Spinoza grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

Multi-center evaluation of Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV molecular point-of-care test.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 is taking a huge toll on society while influenza and RSV detection are also becoming more important. These viruses pose a high burden on health care. Rapid and accurate diagnostics for these pathogens are important for swift triage in the hospital. Fast molecular point of care test (mPOCT) assays for these pathogens can prove an alternative. Here a multi-center evaluation of the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay is reported. Study design: The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay was compared to three reference assays at three Dutch medical microbiology laboratories. An external quality assessment panel consisting of 16 specimens containing SARS-CoV-2, influenza viruses, RSV or human seasonal coronaviruses, or a combination thereof were used. Clinical specimens containing SARS-CoV-2 (n = 57), influenza viruses (n = 21) or RSV (n = 12), at a wide range of relevant concentrations were used. One laboratory also tested zoonotic avian and swine influenza viruses, and eight relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants. Results: The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay showed equal performance compared to the reference assays. All SARS-CoV-2 variants of interest and variants of concern were accurately detected. Human seasonal coronaviruses were not detected. All four circulating seasonal influenza virus subtypes/lineages and both RSV types were accurately detected as well as a set of recent zoonotic avian and swine influenza viruses. The clinical specimens showed 98.2% concordance using this assay. Conclusion: The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay is a good alternative for accurate detection for SARS-CoV-2, influenza type A virus, influenza type B virus and RSV types A and B detection in a short timeframe.

European multicenter evaluation of Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test.

Rapid diagnostics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are paramount for reducing the spread of the current pandemic. During additional seasonal epidemics with influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), the clinical signs and symptoms cannot be distinguished easily from SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, a new assay combining four targets in the form of the new Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay was evaluated. The assay was compared to the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV, Seegene Flu/RSV, influenza A/B r-gene® and RSV/hMPV r-gene®. A total of 295 nasopharyngeal and throat swabs were tested at four institutes throughout Europe including 72 samples positive for SARS-CoV-2, 65 for influenza A, 47 for influenza B, and 77 for RSV. The sensitivity of the new assay was above 95% for all targets, with the highest for SARS-CoV-2 (97.2%). The overall correlation of SARS-CoV-2 Ct values between Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay and Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay was high. The agreement between Ct values above 30 showed the multiplex giving higher Ct values for SARS-CoV-2 on average than the singleplex assay. In conclusion, the new assay is a rapid and reliable alternative with less hands-on time for the detection of not one, but four upper respiratory tract pathogens that may circulate at the same time.

Chest CT in the Emergency Department for Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Dutch Experience.

Background Clinicians need to rapidly and reliably diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for proper risk stratification, isolation strategies, and treatment decisions. Purpose To assess the real-life performance of radiologist emergency department chest CT interpretation for diagnosing COVID-19 during the acute phase of the pandemic, using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS). Materials and Methods This retrospective multicenter study included consecutive patients who presented to emergency departments in six medical centers between March and April 2020 with moderate to severe upper respiratory symptoms suspicious for COVID-19. As part of clinical practice, chest CT scans were obtained for primary work-up and scored using the five-point CO-RADS scheme for suspicion of COVID-19. CT was compared with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay and a clinical reference standard established by a multidisciplinary group of clinicians based on RT-PCR, COVID-19 contact history, oxygen therapy, timing of RT-PCR testing, and likely alternative diagnosis. Performance of CT was estimated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis and diagnostic odds ratios against both reference standards. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of symptom duration grouped presentations of less than 48 hours, 48 hours through 7 days, and more than 7 days. Results A total of 1070 patients (median age, 66 years; interquartile range, 54-75 years; 626 men) were included, of whom 536 (50%) had a positive RT-PCR result and 137 (13%) of whom were considered to have a possible or probable COVID-19 diagnosis based on the clinical reference standard. Chest CT yielded an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.89) compared with RT-PCR and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.89) compared with the clinical reference standard. A CO-RADS score of 4 or greater yielded an odds ratio of 25.9 (95% CI: 18.7, 35.9) for a COVID-19 diagnosis with RT-PCR and an odds ratio of 30.6 (95% CI: 21.1, 44.4) with the clinical reference standard. For symptom duration of less than 48 hours, the AUC fell to 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.80; P < .001). Conclusion Chest CT analysis using the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Reporting and Data System enables rapid and reliable diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly when symptom duration is greater than 48 hours. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Elicker in this issue.

Reply to Gautret et al: hydroxychloroquine sulfate and azithromycin for COVID-19: what is the evidence and what are the risks?

The severity of COVID-19 has resulted in a global rush to find the right antiviral treatment to conquer the pandemic and to treat patients. This requires reliable studies to support treatment. In a recently published study by Gautret et al. the authors concluded that hydroxychloroquine monotherapy and hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin reduced viral load. However, this trial has several major methodological issues, including the design, outcome measure and the statistical analyses. In this paper we discuss the background, clinical evidence, pharmacology and methodological issues related to this clinical trial. We understand the rush to release results, however in case conclusions are far reaching the evidence needs to be robust.

An evaluation of COVID-19 serological assays informs future diagnostics and exposure assessment.

The world is entering a new era of the COVID-19 pandemic in which there is an increasing call for reliable antibody testing. To support decision making on the deployment of serology for either population screening or diagnostics, we present a detailed comparison of serological COVID-19 assays. We show that among the selected assays there is a wide diversity in assay performance in different scenarios and when correlated to virus neutralizing antibodies. The Wantai ELISA detecting total immunoglobulins against the receptor binding domain of SARS CoV-2, has the best overall characteristics to detect functional antibodies in different stages and severity of disease, including the potential to set a cut-off indicating the presence of protective antibodies. The large variety of available serological assays requires proper assay validation before deciding on deployment of assays for specific applications.

Strong associations and moderate predictive value of early symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 test positivity among healthcare workers, the Netherlands, March 2020.

Healthcare workers (n = 803) with mild symptoms were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (n = 90 positive) and asked to complete a symptom questionnaire. Anosmia, muscle ache, ocular pain, general malaise, headache, extreme tiredness and fever were associated with positivity. A predictive model based on these symptoms showed moderate discriminative value (sensitivity: 91.2%; specificity: 55.6%). While our models would not justify presumptive SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis without molecular confirmation, it can contribute to targeted screening strategies.