SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Belgian French-Speaking Primary Schools: An Epidemiological Pilot Study.

Schools have been a point of attention during the pandemic, and their closure one of the mitigating measures taken. A better understanding of the dynamics of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in elementary education is essential to advise decisionmakers. We conducted an uncontrolled non-interventional prospective study in Belgian French-speaking schools to describe the role of attending asymptomatic children and school staff in the spread of COVID-19 and to estimate the transmission to others. Each participant from selected schools was tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis on saliva sample, on a weekly basis, during six consecutive visits. In accordance with recommendations in force at the time, symptomatic individuals were excluded from school, but per the study protocol, being that participants were blinded to PCR results, asymptomatic participants were maintained at school. Among 11 selected schools, 932 pupils and 242 school staff were included between January and May 2021. Overall, 6449 saliva samples were collected, of which 44 came back positive. Most positive samples came from isolated cases. We observed that asymptomatic positive children remaining at school did not lead to increasing numbers of cases or clusters. However, we conducted our study during a period of low prevalence in Belgium. It would be interesting to conduct the same analysis during a high prevalence period.

Validation of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Cut-off Value Associated with High In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) could be a predictive factor of severe COVID-19. However, most relevant studies are retrospective, and the optimal NLR cut-off point has not been determined. The objective of our research was identification and validation of the best NLR cut-off value on admission that could predict high in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Medical files of all patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia in our dedicated COVID-units between March and April 2020 (derivation cohort) and between October and December 2020 (validation cohort) were reviewed. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-nine patients were included in the study (198 in the derivation and 101 in the validation cohort, respectively). Youden's J statistic in the derivation cohort determined the optimal cut-off value for the performance of NLR at admission to predict mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The NLR cut-off value of 5.94 had a sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 64%. In ROC curve analysis, the AUC was 0.665 [95% CI 0.530-0.801, p= 0.025]. In the validation cohort, the best predictive cut-off value of NLR was 6.4, which corresponded to a sensitivity of 63% and a specificity of 64% with AUC 0.766 [95% CI 0.651-0.881, p <0.001]. When the NLR cut-off value of 5.94 was applied in the validation cohort, there was no significant difference in death and survival in comparison with the derivation NLR cut-off. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) analysis showed no significant classification change in outcome between both NLR cut-off values (NRI:0.012, p=0.31). CONCLUSION: In prospective analysis, an NLR value of 5.94 predicted high in-hospital mortality upon admission in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia.

Dynamics of spreading of SARS-CoV-2 in a Belgian hemodialysis facility: The importance of the analysis of viral strains.

In-center maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients are at high risk of acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by cross-contamination inside the unit. The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the dynamics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during the very first pandemic phase (March-July 2020) in a cohort of in-center maintenance HD patients and in nurses the same HD facility, using a phylogenetic approach. All SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction positive patients and nurses from our HD unit-respectively 10 out of 98, and 8 out of 58- and two other positive patients dialyzed in our self-care unit were included. Whole-genome viral sequencing and phylogenetic analysis supported the cluster investigation. Five positive patients were usually dialyzed in the same room and same shift before their COVID-19 diagnosis was made. Viral sequencing performed on 4/5 patients' swabs showed no phylogenetic link between their viruses. The fifth patient (whose virus could not be sequenced) was dialyzed at the end of the dialysis room and was treated by a different nurse than the one in charge of the other patients. Three nurses shared the same virus detected in both self-care patients (one of them had been transferred to our in-center facility). The epidemiologically strongly suspected intra-unit cluster could be ruled out by viral genome sequencing. The infection control policy did not allow inter-patient contamination within the HD facility, in contrast to evidence of moderate dissemination within the nursing staff and in the satellite unit. Epidemiologic data without phylogenetic confirmation might mislead the interpretation of the dynamics of viral spreading within congregate settings.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers of a teaching hospital in Belgium: self-reported occupational and household risk factors for seropositivity.

This study aims to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among health care workers (HCWs) and to assess self-reported risk factors for seropositivity. A total of 3255 HCWs were included and the overall seroprevalence was 7.8%. The likelihood of seropositivity was higher in participants reporting any COVID-19 symptoms within the last 4 months (OR 8.32, 95% CI 5.83-11.88, P < 0.001). Being a female HCW (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11-2.32, P < 0.01), having a cohabitant who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.78-3.66 P < 0.001) or a cohabitant who was a nursing home caregiver (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.59-8.65, P = 0.002) were independently associated with an increased risk of seropositivity. Working in a COVID-19 unit (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.21-2.23, P < 0.001) and being exposed to a SARS-CoV-2 infected co-worker (OR 1.30,95% CI 0.97-1.74, P = 0.016) resulted in higher seropositivity rate. Even if in-hospital exposure may play a significant role, increased infection risk is most likely attributable to household contact.

How to choose the right real-time RT-PCR primer sets for the SARS-CoV-2 genome detection?

OBJECTIVES: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created an unprecedented need for rapid large-scale diagnostic testing to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays recommended by the World Health Organization are being used by clinical and public health laboratories and typically target regions of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), envelope (E) and nucleocapsid (N) coding region. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. This study aimed to clarify the clinical performances of the primer/probe sets designed by US CDC and Charité/Berlin to help clinical laboratories in assay selection for SARS-CoV-2 routine detection. METHODS: We compared the clinical performances of the recommended primer/probe sets using one hundred nasopharyngeal swab specimens from patients who were clinically diagnosed with COVID-19. An additional 30 "pre-intervention screening" samples from patients who were not suspected of COVID-19 were also included in this study. We also performed sequence alignment between 31064 European SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern genomes and the recommended primer/probe sets. RESULTS: The present study demonstrates substantial differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection sensitivity among the primer/probe sets recommended by the World Health Organization especially for low-level viral loads. The alignment of thousands of SARS-CoV-2 sequences reveals that the genetic diversity remains relatively low at the primer/probe binding sites. However, multiple nucleotide mismatches might contribute to false negatives. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the limitations depending on the targeted genes and primer/probe sets may influence the selection of molecular detection assays by clinical laboratories.

Clinical usefulness of fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for quantitative antibody measurements in COVID-19 patients.

Since December 2019, we have been in the battlefield with a new threat to the humanity, known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), characterized by viral pneumonia. It may be asymptomatic or cause various symptoms, ranging from flu-like symptoms to acute respiratory distress syndrome and eventually death. At present, the only reliable test for COVID-19 diagnosis is quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Assessing the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 could increase the detection sensitivity of infected population. Hereby, we report the performances of a fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) on 276 serum samples. One hundred samples obtained from COVID-19 negative subjects (COVID-19 free) were analyzed to evaluate the diagnostic specificity of antibody (Ab) detection. Thereafter, 176 samples obtained from 125 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (COVID-19 patients) were selected to assess the diagnostic sensitivity of the CLIA. All samples were analyzed on MAGLUMI 800 platform. All COVID-19 free samples had Ab levels below the cutoff values. Hence, the diagnostic specificity was estimated at 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 96.3-100.0; positive predictive value = 100%). By the 18th day from the onset of symptoms, we reached an optimal diagnostic sensitivity (more than 95.0%) In fact, the diagnostic sensitivity increased over time and between 15 and 25 days after symptoms onset, reached 95.5% (95% CI = 84.9-99.2). The new automated CLIA analyzer appeared to be a robust and reliable method to measure specific Ab against COVID-19 at high throughput. Our data suggest that combining Ab and nucleic acid detection could increase diagnostic sensitivity.

Usefulness of a multiplex immunodot in case of discordant results between automated COVID-19 serological assays.

BACKGROUND: At present, the only reliable test for COVID-19 diagnosis is RT-qPCR. Serological assays have been widely used to increase the detection sensitivity of infected population. Hereby, we report the performance of a new pan-IgG multiplex Enzyme Immunoassay (immunodot) method for exploration of discrepant SARS-COV-2 serological results. METHODS: A retrospective study on 38 residual serum samples from recovered COVID-19 subjects with discordant serological results on Roche and Snibe platforms, were reanalyzed on a new semi-automated pan-IgG immunodot Enzyme Immunoassay, namely COVIDOT-TEST, in order to find the source of discrepancies and to evaluate the latter method. All samples were analyzed on the BlueDiver® Instrument and all strips were read by the BlueScan® Scanner using Dr DOT® Software. RESULTS: Based on our data, subject samples showed specific IgG reactions on ≥ 2 different antigens on immunodot strips. Of these 38 samples, 97.4 % of samples showed specific IgG reaction against S1 + S2 antigens, 89.5 % showed against RBD antigen, 86.8 % against S2 antigen reaction on the COVIDOT-TEST kit. Specific IgG-S1 antigen and IgG-N antigen reactions were detected in 73.7 % and 65.8 % of the samples, respectively. CONCLUSION: The new semi-automated pan-IgG immunodot Enzyme Immunoassay method appeared to be a reliable assay to confirm suspicious COVID-19 serological screening results.

A biological profile for diagnosis and outcome of COVID-19 patients.

Objectives As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) pandemic is increasing its victims on a global scale with recurring outbreaks, it remains of outmost importance to rapidly identify people requiring an intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization. The aim of this study was to identify Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) biomarkers, to investigate their correlation with disease severity and to evaluate their usefulness for follow-up. Methods Fifty patients diagnosed with SARS-Cov-2 were included in March 2020. Clinical and biological data were collected at admission, during hospitalization and one month after discharge. Patients were divided into two severity groups: non-ICU (28) and ICU and/or death (22) to stratify the risk. Results Blood parameters in COVID-19 patients at admission showed increased C-reactive protein (CRP) (100%), ferritin (92%), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (80%), white blood cell (WBC) count (26%) with lymphopenia (52%) and eosinopenia (98%). There were significant differences in levels of CRP, ferritin, D-dimers, fibrinogen, lymphocyte count, neutrophil count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) among the two severity groups. Mapping of biomarker's kinetics distinguished early and late parameters. CRP, ferritin, LDH, lymphopenia and eosinopenia were present upon admission with a peak at the first week. Late biomarkers such as anemia, neutrophilia and elevated liver biomarkers appeared after one week with a peak at three weeks of hospitalization. Conclusions We confirmed that high-values of CRP, NLR, D-dimers, ferritin as well as lymphopenia and eosinopenia were consistently found and are good markers for risk stratification. Kinetics of these biomarkers correlate well with COVID-19 severity. Close monitoring of early and late biomarkers is crucial in the management of critical patients to avoid preventable deaths.

Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring accurate diagnosis is essential to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and for the clinical management of COVID-19. Although real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT- qPCR) is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment and skilled staff limit the use of these time-consuming molecular techniques. Recently, several easy to perform rapid antigen detection tests were developed and recommended in some countries as the first line of diagnostic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of the Coris COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip test, a rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, in comparison to RT-qPCR. RESULTS: 148 nasopharyngeal swabs were tested. Amongst the 106 positive RT-qPCR samples, 32 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 30.2%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid test were also positive with RT-qPCR. CONCLUSIONS: Higher viral loads are associated with better antigen detection rates. Unfortunately, the overall poor sensitivity of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip does not allow using it alone as the frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

INTRODUCTION: Several SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays have been developed recently. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of five immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: Two quantitative automated immunoassays (Maglumi™2019-n-Cov IgG and IgM and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA assays) and three lateral flow rapid tests were performed. This retrospective study included 200 residual sera from patients and healthy volunteers. Case serum samples (n = 128) were obtained from COVID-19 patients confirmed by RT-qPCR and CT-scan. Days since onset of symptoms was collected from their medical records. Control non-SARS-CoV-2 samples (n = 72) were obtained from anonymous stored residual serum samples. RESULTS: Maglumi™ IgG/IgM tests showed overall less sensitivity than Euroimmun IgG/IgA test (84.4 % versus 64.3 %). Both tests showed similar specificities of IgG at 99 % and 100 %, respectively. The results from the lateral flow assays were easily interpretable with unambiguous coloured reading bands. The overall sensitivity of the three tests was similar (around 70 %) without any significant differences. The sensitivity of the three lateral flow assays and also of the serological quantitative assays increased during the second week after symptom onset and all reached similar values (91 %-94 %) after 14 days. CONCLUSION: This study shows accurate and equivalent performance of the five serological antibody assays (ELISA, CLIA and three lateral flow tests) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 14 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. This is compatible with their application in specific clinical contexts and in determining epidemiological strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic.