ABSTRACT
Background Many countries require incoming air travellers to quarantine on arrival and/or undergo testing to limit importation of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We developed mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 viral load trajectories over the course of infection to assess the effectiveness of quarantine and testing strategies. We consider the use of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and lateral flow testing (LFT) both pre-flight, to reduce the number of infectious arrivals and when exiting quarantine, and daily testing of arrivals with LFTs. We also estimate the effect of each strategy relative to domestic incidence, and limits of achievable risk reduction, for 99 countries where flight data and case numbers are estimated. Results We find that immediately pre-flight LFTs are more effective than PCR tests 3 days before departure in decreasing the number of departing infectious travellers. Pre-flight LFTs and post-flight quarantines, with tests to release, may prevent the majority of transmission from infectious arrivals while reducing the required duration of quarantine; a pre-flight LFT followed by 5 days in quarantine with a test to release would reduce the expected number of secondary cases generated by an infected traveller compared to symptomatic self-isolation alone, Rs, by 85% (95% UI: 74%, 96%) for PCR and 85% (95% UI: 70%, 96%) for LFT, even assuming imperfect adherence to quarantine (28% of individuals) and self-isolation following a positive test (86%). Under the same adherence assumptions, 5 days of daily LFT testing would reduce Rs by 91% (95% UI: 75%, 98%). Conclusions Strategies aimed at reducing the risk of imported cases should be considered with respect to: domestic incidence, transmission, and susceptibility; measures in place to support quarantining travellers; and incidence of new variants of concern in travellers' origin countries. Daily testing with LFTs for 5 days is comparable to 5 days of quarantine with a test on exit or 14 days with no test.
Subject(s)
Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
As SARS-CoV-2 variants continue to emerge globally, a major challenge for COVID-19 vaccination is the generation of a durable antibody response with cross-neutralizing activity against both current and newly emerging viral variants. Cross-neutralizing activity against major variants of concern (B.1.1.7, P.1 and B.1.351) has been observed following vaccination, albeit at a reduced potency, but whether vaccines based on the Spike glycoprotein of these viral variants will produce a superior cross-neutralizing antibody response has not been fully investigated. Here, we used sera from individuals infected in wave 1 in the UK to study the long-term cross-neutralization up to 10 months post onset of symptoms (POS), as well as sera from individuals infected with the B.1.1.7 variant to compare cross-neutralizing activity profiles. We show that neutralizing antibodies with cross-neutralizing activity can be detected from wave 1 up to 10 months POS. Although neutralization of B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 is lower, the difference in neutralization potency decreases at later timepoints suggesting continued antibody maturation and improved tolerance to Spike mutations. Interestingly, we found that B.1.1.7 infection also generates a cross-neutralizing antibody response, which, although still less potent against B.1.351, can neutralize parental wave 1 virus to a similar degree as B.1.1.7. These findings have implications for the optimization of vaccines that protect against newly emerging viral variants.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Rapid antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing. However, their reduced sensitivity compared to PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is therefore essential for successful implementation. To address this, we evaluated six commercial LFDs on the same collection of clinical samples and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and cycle threshold (Ct) values. Methods: A head-to-head comparison of specificities and sensitivities was performed on six commercial rapid antigen tests using combined nasal/oropharyngeal swabs, and their limits of detection determined using viral plaque forming units (PFU). Three of the LFDs were selected for a further study, correlating antigen test result with RT-PCR Ct values and positive viral culture in Vero-E6 cells. This included sequential swabs and matched serum samples obtained from four infected individuals with varying disease severities. Detection of antibodies was performed using an IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, and neutralising antibodies by infectious virus assay. Finally, the sensitivities of selected rapid antigen LFTs were assessed in swabs with confirmed B.1.1.7 variant, currently the dominant genotype in the UK. Findings: Most of the rapid antigen LFDs showed a high specificity (>98%), and accurately detected 50 PFU/test (equivalent N1 Ct of 23.7 or RNA copy number of 3x106/ml). Sensitivities of the LFDs performed on clinical samples ranged from 65 to 89%. These sensitivities increased in most tests to over 90% for samples with Cts lower than 25. Positive virus culture was achieved for 57 out of 141 samples, with 80% of the positive cultures from swabs with Cts lower than 23. Importantly, sensitivity of the LFDs increased to over 95% when compared with the detection of infectious virus alone, irrespective of Ct. Longitudinal studies of PCR-positive samples showed that most of the tests identified all infectious samples as positive, but differences in test sensitivities can lead to missed cases in the absence of repeated testing. Finally, test performance was not impacted when re-assessed against swabs positive for the dominant UK variant B.1.1.7. Interpretation: In this comprehensive comparison of antigen LFD and virus infectivity, we demonstrate 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 using LFDs to supplement the current PCR testing capacity, to rapidly identify infected individuals in situations where they would otherwise go undetected.
Subject(s)
Neuromyelitis OpticaABSTRACT
Many healthcare facilities report SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks but transmission analysis is complicated by the high prevalence of infection and limited viral genetic diversity. The contribution of different vectors to nosocomial infection or the effectiveness of interventions is therefore currently unclear. Detailed epidemiological and viral nanopore sequence data were analysed from 574 consecutive patients with a PCR positive SARS-CoV-2 test between March 13th and March 31st, when the pandemic first impacted on a large, multisite healthcare institution in London. During this time the first major preventative interventions were introduced, including progressive community social distancing (CSD) policies leading to mandatory national lockdown, exclusion of hospital visitors, and introduction of universal surgical facemask-use by healthcare-workers (HCW). Incidence of nosocomial cases, community SARS-CoV-2 cases and infection in a cohort of 228 HCWs followed the same dynamic course, decreasing shortly after introduction of CSD measures and prior to the main hospital-based interventions. We investigated clusters involving nosocomial cases based on overlapping ward-stays during the 14-day incubation period and SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence similarity. Our method placed 63 (79%) of 80 sequenced probable and definite nosocomial cases into 14 clusters containing a median of 4 patients (min 2, max 19) No genetic support was found for the majority of epidemiological clusters (31/44, 70%) and genomics revealed multiple contemporaneous outbreaks within single epidemiological clusters. We included a measure of hospital enrichment compared to community cases to increase confidence in our clusters, which were 1-14 fold enriched. Applying genomics, we could provide a robust estimate of the incubation period for nosocomial transmission, with a median lower bound and upper bound of 6 and 9 days respectively. Six (43%) clusters spanned multiple wards, with evidence of cryptic transmission, and community-onset cases could not be identified in more than half the clusters, particularly on the elective hospital site, implicating HCW as vectors of transmission. Taken together these findings suggest that CSD had the dominant impact on reducing nosocomial transmission by reducing HCW infection.
Subject(s)
Cross Infection , Agricultural Workers' DiseasesABSTRACT
Objectives: Determine indications and clinical utility of SARS-CoV-2 serology testing in adults and children. Design: Prospective evaluation of initial three weeks of a daily Monday to Friday pilot SARS-CoV-2 serology service for patients. Setting: Early post 'first-wave' SARS-CoV-2 transmission period at single centre London teaching hospital that provides care to the local community, as well as regional and national referral pathways for specialist services. Participants: 110 (72 adults, 38 children, age range 0-83 years, 52.7% female (n=58)). Interventions: Patient serum from vetted referrals tested on CE marked and internally validated lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) (SureScreen Diagnostics) detecting antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, with result and clinical interpretation provided to the direct care team. Main outcome measures: Performance characteristics, source and nature of referrals, feasibility and clinical utility of the service, particularly the benefit for clinical decision-making. Results: The LFIA was deemed suitable for clinical advice and decision making following evaluation with 310 serum samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive patients and 300 pre-pandemic samples, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 96.1% and 99.3% respectively. For the pilot, 115 referrals were received leading to 113 tests performed on 108 participants (sample not available for two participants); paediatrics (n=35), medicine (n=69), surgery (n=2) and general practice (n=2). 43.4% participants (n=49) had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. There were three main indications for serology; new acute presentations potentially triggered by recent COVID-19 infection e.g. PIMS-TS (n=26) and pulmonary embolism (n=5), potential missed diagnoses in context of a recent compatible illness (n=40), and making infection control and immunosuppression treatment decisions in persistently SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR positive individuals (n=6). Conclusions: This study shows acceptable performance characteristics, feasibility and clinical utility of a SARS-CoV-2 serology service using a rapid, inexpensive and portable assay for adults and children presenting with a range of clinical indications. Results correlated closely with a confirmatory in-house ELISA. The study showed the benefit of introducing a serology service where there is a reasonable pre-test probability, and the result can be linked with clinical advice or intervention. Experience thus far is that the volume of requests from hospital referral routes are manageable within existing clinical and laboratory services; however, the demand from community referrals has not yet been assessed. Given recent evidence for a rapid decline in antibodies, particularly following mild infection, there is likely a limited window of opportunity to realise the benefit of serology testing for individuals infected during the 'first-wave' before they potentially fall below a measurable threshold. Rapidly expanding availability of serology services for NHS patients will also help understand the long-term implications of serostatus and prior infection in different patient groups, particularly before emergence of any 'second-wave' outbreak or introduction of a vaccination programme.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary EmbolismABSTRACT
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 as diagnostic tools. A highly specific in-house ELISA was 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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
There is a worldwide shortage of reagents to perform detection of SARS-2. Many clinical diagnostic laboratories rely on commercial platforms that provide integrated end-to-end solutions. While this provides established robust pipelines, there is a clear bottleneck in the supply of reagents given the current situation of extraordinary high demand. Some laboratories resort to implementing kit-free handling procedures, but many other small laboratories will not have the capacity to develop those and/or will perform manual handling of their samples. In order to provide multiple workflows for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection we compared several commercially available RNA extraction methods: QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAgen), the recently developed RNAdvance Blood (Beckman) and Mag-Bind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (Omega Bio-tek). We also compared different 1-step RT-qPCR Master Mix brands: TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix (ThermoFisher Scientific), qPCRBIO Probe 1-Step Go Lo-ROX (PCR Biosystems) and Luna(R) Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit (NEB). We used the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) recommended primers that detect two regions of the viral N gene as well as those that detect the RdRP gene region as per Public Health England (PHE) guidelines (Charite/WHO/PHE). Our data show that the RNA extraction methods provide similar results. Amongst the qPCR reagents tested, TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix and Luna(R) Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit proved most sensitive. The N1 and N2 primer-probes provide a more reliable detection than the RdRP-SARSr primer-probe set, particularly in samples with low viral titres. Importantly, we have implemented a protocol using heat inactivation and demonstrate that it has minimal impact on the sensitivity of the qPCR in clinical samples - potentially making SARS-CoV-2 testing portable to settings that do not have CL-3 facilities.