Evaluation of the ID NOW among symptomatic individuals during the Omicron wave.

Introduction. Starting in December, 2020, the ID NOW was implemented throughout the province of Alberta, Canada (population 4.4 million) in various settings.Gap statement. ID NOW's test performance with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant BA.1 is unknown.Aim. To assess the ID NOW performance among symptomatic individuals during the BA.1 Omicron wave and compare it to previous SARS-CoV-2 variant waves.Methodology. The ID NOW was assessed in two locations among symptomatic individuals: rural hospitals and community assessment centres (AC) during the period 5-18 January 2022. Starting 5 January, Omicron represented >95 % of variants detected in our population. For every individual tested, two swabs were collected: one for ID NOW testing and the other for either reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmation of negative ID NOW results or for variant testing of positive ID NOW results.Results. A total of 3041 paired samples were analysed (1139 RT-PCR positive). From this, 1873 samples were from 42 COVID-19 AC and 1168 from 69 rural hospitals. ID NOW sensitivity for symptomatic individuals presenting to community AC and rural hospitals was 96.0 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 94.5-97.3 %, n=830 RT-PCR positive], and 91.6 % (95 % CI 87.9-94.4 %, n=309 RT-PCR positive), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was very high for both populations (44.3 % at AC, 26.5 % in hospital).Conclusions. Sensitivity of ID NOW SARS-CoV-2, compared to RT-PCR, is very high during the BA.1 Omicron wave, and is significantly higher when compared to previous SARS-CoV-2 variant waves.

Prospective population-level validation of the Abbott ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 device implemented in multiple settings for testing asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic evaluation of the ID NOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) assay in various real-world settings among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: Depending on the setting, the ID NOW testing was performed using oropharyngeal swabs (OPSs) taken from patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, asymptomatic close contacts, or asymptomatic individuals as part of outbreak point prevalence screening. From January to April 2021, a select number of sites switched from using OPS to combined oropharyngeal and nasal swab (O + NS) for ID NOW testing. For every individual tested, two swabs were collected by a health care worker: one swab (OPS or O + NS) for ID NOW testing and a separate swab (OPS or nasopharyngeal swab) for RT-PCR. RESULTS: A total of 129 112 paired samples were analysed (16 061 RT-PCR positive). Of these, 81 697 samples were from 42 COVID-19 community collection sites, 16 924 samples were from 69 rural hospitals, 1927 samples were from nine emergency shelters and addiction treatment facilities, 23 802 samples were from six mobile units that responded to 356 community outbreaks, and 4762 O + NS swabs were collected from three community collection sites and one emergency shelter. The ID NOW assay sensitivity was the highest among symptomatic individuals presenting to community collection sites (92.5%; 95% CI, 92.0-93.0%) and the lowest for asymptomatic individuals associated with community outbreaks (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.8-77.7%). Specificity was >99% in all populations tested. DISCUSSION: The sensitivity of ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing is the highest when used in symptomatic community populations not seeking medical care. Sensitivity and positive predictive value drop by approximately 10% when tested on asymptomatic populations. Using combined oropharyngeal and nasal swabs did not improve the performance of ID NOW assay.

Point of care molecular and antigen detection tests for COVID-19: current status and future prospects.

INTRODUCTION: Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been critical to support and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Point of care testing (POCT) for SARS-CoV-2 has been a widely used tool for detection of SARS-CoV-2. AREAS COVERED: POCT nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been the most readily used POCT for SARS-CoV-2. Here, current knowledge on the utility of POCT NAATs and RATs for SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed and discussed alongside aspects of quality assurance factors that must be considered for successful and safe implementation of POCT. EXPERT OPINION: Use cases for implementation of POCT must be evidence based, regardless of the test used. A quality assurance framework must be in place to ensure accuracy and safety of POCT.

One Swab Fits All: Performance of a Rapid, Antigen-Based SARS-CoV-2 Test Using a Nasal Swab, Nasopharyngeal Swab for Nasal Collection, and RT-PCR Confirmation from Residual Extraction Buffer.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. In the performance of a rapid, antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 test (RAT), our study had 3 main objectives: to determine the accuracy of nasal swabs, the accuracy of using nasopharyngeal swabs for nasal collection (nasalNP), and the effectiveness of using residual extraction buffer for real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) confirmation of positive RAT (rPan). METHODS: Symptomatic adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the community were recruited into the study. Nasal samples were collected using either a nasalNP or nasal swab and tested immediately with the RAT in the individual's home by a health care provider. 500 µL of universal transport media was added to the residual extraction buffer after testing and sent to the laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 testing using RT-PCR. Parallel throat swabs tested with RT-PCR were used as the reference comparators. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five individuals were included in the study (99 nasal swabs, 56 nasalNP). Sensitivities of nasal samples tested on the RAT using either nasal or nasalNP were 89.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 80.7%-94.6%] and 90.2% (95% CI 78.6%-96.7%), respectively. rPan positivity agreement compared to throat RT-PCR was 96.2%. CONCLUSIONS: RAT reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 from symptomatic adults in the community presenting within 7 days of symptom onset using nasal swabs or nasalNP. High agreement with rPan can avoid the need for collecting a second swab for RT-PCR confirmation or testing of variants of concern from positive RAT in this population.

Multicenter Postimplementation Assessment of the Positive Predictive Value of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Based Point-of-Care Tests Used for Screening of Asymptomatic Continuing Care Staff.

Frequent screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among asymptomatic populations using antigen-based point-of-care tests (APOCTs) is occurring globally with limited clinical performance data. The positive predictive value (PPV) of two APOCTs used in the asymptomatic screening of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers (HCWs) at continuing care (CC) sites across AB, Canada, was evaluated. Between 22 February and 2 May 2021, CC sites implemented SARS-CoV-2 voluntary screening of their asymptomatic HCWs. On-site testing with Abbott Panbio or BD Veritor occurred on a weekly or twice-weekly basis. Positive APOCTs were confirmed with a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR) reference method. A total of 71,847 APOCTs (17,689 Veritor and 54,158 Panbio) were performed among 369 CC sites. Eighty-seven (0.12%) APOCTs were positive, of which 39 (0.05%) were confirmed as true positives using rRT-PCR. Use of the Veritor and Panbio resulted in 76.6% and 30.0% false-positive detection, respectively (P < 0.001). This corresponded to PPVs of 23.4 and 70.0% for the Veritor and Panbio, respectively. Frequent screening of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic HCWs in CC, using APOCTs, resulted in a very low detection rate and a high rate of detection of false positives. Careful assessment of the risks versus benefits of APOCT programs and the prevalence of infection in this population needs to be thoroughly considered before implementation.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in multiple laboratory conditions and blood sample types.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 seroprevalence studies use serum/plasma samples to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Data supporting alternate specimen types and freeze-thaw antibody stability is lacking. The stability of IgG and other immunoglobulins in multiple blood sample types stored in differing conditions and multiple freeze-thaw cycles (FTCs) was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum, plasma, and heparinized-plasma samples were collected from COVID-19 recovered individuals. Samples underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies upon collection, after each of 10-12 FTCs, and storage at -70°C, -20°C, 4°C, and room-temperature for 10-12 days using four high-throughput commercial assays, two rapid-test cassettes, a manual ELISA, and a surrogate neutralization assay. RESULTS: All three specimen types were collected from 34 COVID-19 recovered seropositive individuals (≥21 days post-symptoms). Using the Architect and Liaison assays, a positive qualitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG result was detected daily up to 12 FTCs and up to 10 days of storage at different temperatures. An additional 25 plasma samples consistently demonstrated detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies daily after 12 FTCs and storage at -20°C using two rapid test cassette assays (SD Biosensor and Hangzhou All Test), manual (Beijing Wantai) and surrogate neutralization (GenScript) ELISAs, and two high-throughput assays (Roche Elecsys nucleocapsid and spike). IgM antibodies were less frequently detected by one of the rapid test cassette assays. CONCLUSIONS: Serum, plasma, and heparinized-plasma constitute reliable samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection. In particular, the IgG response was stable and reliably detected after multiple FTCs and storage at common laboratory conditions. IgM detection was variable due to the labile nature of this antibody class.

Acceptable performance of the Abbott ID NOW among symptomatic individuals with confirmed COVID-19.

Introduction. The ID NOW is FDA approved for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals within the first 7 days of symptom onset for COVID-19 if tested within 1 h of specimen collection.Gap statement. Clinical data on the performance of the ID NOW are limited, with many studies varying in their study design and/or having small sample size.Aim. In this study we aimed to determine the clinical performance of the ID NOW compared to conventional RT-PCR testing.Methodology. Adults with COVID-19 in the community or hospital were recruited into the study. Paired throat swabs were collected, with one throat swab transported immediately in an empty sterile tube to the laboratory for ID NOW testing, and the other transported in universal transport media and tested by an in-house SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay targeting the E gene.Results. In total, 133 individuals were included in the study; 129 samples were positive on either the ID NOW and/or RT-PCR. Assuming any positive result on either assay represents a true positive, positive per cent agreement (PPA) of the ID NOW compared to RT-PCR with 95 % confidence intervals was 89.1 % (82.0-94.1%) and 91.6 % (85.1-95.9%), respectively. When analysing individuals with symptom duration ≤7 days and who had the ID NOW performed within 1 h (n=62), ID NOW PPA increased to 98.2 %.Conclusion. Results from the ID NOW were reliable, especially when adhering to the manufacturer's recommendations for testing.

Clinical performance of the Abbott Panbio with nasopharyngeal, throat, and saliva swabs among symptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests used at the point-of-care, such as the Abbott Panbio, have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The Panbio is Health Canada approved for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset(s). Symptomatic adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the community were recruited into the study. Paired nasopharyngeal (NP), throat, and saliva swabs were collected, with one paired swab tested immediately with the Panbio, and the other transported in universal transport media and tested using real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We also prospectively evaluated results from assessment centers within the community. For those individuals, an NP swab was collected for Panbio testing and paired with RT-PCR results from parallel NP or throat swabs. One hundred and forty-five individuals were included in the study. Collection of throat and saliva was stopped early due to poorer performance (throat sensitivity 57.7%, n=61, and saliva sensitivity 2.6%, n=41). NP swab sensitivity was 87.7% [n=145, 95% confidence interval (CI) 81.0-92.7%]. There were 1641 symptomatic individuals tested by Panbio in assessment centers with 268/1641 (16.3%) positive for SARS-CoV-2. There were 37 false negatives and 2 false positives, corresponding to a sensitivity and specificity of 86.1% [95% CI 81.3-90.0%] and 99.9% [95% CI 99.5-100.0%], respectively. The Panbio test reliably detects most cases of SARS-CoV-2 from adults in the community setting presenting within 7 days of symptom onset using nasopharyngeal swabs. Throat and saliva swabs are not reliable specimens for the Panbio.

Immunomodulatory Low-Dose Whole-Lung Radiation for Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Pneumonia.

PURPOSE: Phase 1 clinical trials have established low-dose, whole-lung radiation therapy (LD-RT) as safe for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related pneumonia. By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, LD-RT may improve disease outcomes through immunomodulation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were treated with 1.5 Gy whole-lung LD-RT, followed for 28 days or until hospital discharge, and compared with age- and comorbidity-matched controls meeting identical disease severity criteria. Eligible patients were hospitalized, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) positive, had radiographic consolidations, and required supplemental oxygen but had not rapidly declined on admission or before drug therapy or LD-RT. Efficacy endpoints were time to clinical recovery, radiographic improvement, and biomarker response. RESULTS: Ten patients received whole-lung LD-RT between April 24 and May 24, 2020 and were compared with 10 control patients blindly matched by age and comorbidity. Six controls received COVID-19 drug therapies. Median time to clinical recovery was 12 days in the control cohort compared with 3 days in the LD-RT cohort (hazard ratio 2.9, P = .05). Median time to hospital discharge (20 vs 12 days, P = .19) and intubation rates (40% vs 10%, P = .12) in the control and LD-RT cohorts were compared. Median time from admission to recovery was 10 versus 13 days (P = .13). Hospital duration average was 19 versus 22.6 days (P = .53). Average hospital days on supplemental oxygen of any duration was 13.1 versus 14.7 days (P = .69). Average days with a documented fever was 1 versus 4.3 days (P = .12). Twenty-eight-day overall survival was 90% for both cohorts. The LD-RT cohort trended toward superior rates of improved radiographs (P = .12) and delirium (P < .01). Statistically significant reductions were observed in numerous hematologic, cardiac, hepatic, and inflammatory markers. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective cohort of predominantly elderly hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were recovered to room air quicker than age- and comorbidity-matched controls, with trending or significant improvements in delirium, radiographs, and biomarkers, and no significant acute toxicity. Low-dose, whole-lung radiation for patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia appears safe and may be an effective immunomodulatory treatment. Larger prospective randomized trials are needed to define the efficacy of LD-RT for COVID-19.

Low-dose whole-lung radiation for COVID-19 pneumonia: Planned day 7 interim analysis of a registered clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals of advanced age with comorbidities face a higher risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially once they are ventilator-dependent. Respiratory decline in patients with COVID-19 is precipitated by a lung-mediated aberrant immune cytokine storm. Low-dose lung radiation was used to treat pneumonia in the pre-antibiotic era. Radiation immunomodulatory effects may improve outcomes for select patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A single-institution trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of single-fraction, low-dose whole-lung radiation for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia is being performed for the first time. This report describes outcomes of a planned day 7 interim analysis. Eligible patients were hospitalized, had radiographic consolidation, required supplemental oxygen, and were clinically deteriorating. RESULTS: Of 9 patients screened, 5 were treated with whole-lung radiation on April 24 until April 28 2020, and they were followed for a minimum of 7 days. The median age was 90 years (range, 64-94 years), and 4 were nursing home residents with multiple comorbidities. Within 24 hours of radiation, 3 patients (60%) were weaned from supplemental oxygen to ambient air, 4 (80%) exhibited radiographic improvement, and the median Glasgow Coma Scale score improved from 10 to 14. A fourth patient (80% overall recovery) was weaned from oxygen at hour 96. The mean time to clinical recovery was 35 hours. There were no acute toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: In a pilot trial of 5 oxygen-dependent elderly patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, low-dose whole-lung radiation led to rapid improvements in clinical status, encephalopathy, and radiographic consolidation without acute toxicity. Low-dose whole-lung radiation appears to be safe, shows early promise of efficacy, and warrants further study. LAY SUMMARY: Researchers at Emory University report preliminary safety outcomes for patients treated with low-dose lung irradiation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Five residents of nursing or group homes were hospitalized after testing positive for COVID-19. Each had pneumonia visible on a chest x-ray, required supplemental oxygen, and experienced a clinical decline in mental status or in work of breathing or a prolonged or escalating supplemental oxygen requirement. A single treatment of low-dose (1.5-Gy) radiation to both lungs was delivered over the course of 10 to 15 minutes. There was no acute toxicity attributable to radiation therapy. Within 24 hours, 4 patients had rapidly improved breathing, and they recovered to room air at an average of 1.5 days (range, 3-96 hours). Three were discharged at a mean time of 12 days, and 1 was preparing for discharge. Blood tests and repeat imaging confirm that low-dose whole-lung radiation treatment appears safe for COVID-19 pneumonia. Further trials are warranted.

Evaluation of Six Commercial Mid- to High-Volume Antibody and Six Point-of-Care Lateral Flow Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

Coronavirus disease (COVID) serological tests are essential to determine the overall seroprevalence of a population and to facilitate exposure estimates within that population. We performed a head-to-head assessment of enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and point-of-care lateral flow assays (POCTs) to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. Demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, treatment, and mortality of patients whose sera were used were also reviewed. Six EIAs (Abbott, Affinity, Bio-Rad, DiaSorin, Euroimmun, and Roche) and six POCTs (BTNX, Biolidics, Deep Blue, Genrui, Getein BioTech, and Innovita) were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in known COVID-19-infected individuals. Sensitivity of EIAs ranged from 50 to 100%, with only four assays having overall sensitivities of >95% after 21 days after symptom onset. Notably, cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses (parainfluenza virus [PIV-4] [n = 5], human metapneumovirus [hMPV] [n = 3], rhinovirus/enterovirus [n = 1], CoV-229E [n = 2], CoV-NL63 [n = 2], and CoV-OC43 [n = 2]) was observed; however, overall specificity of EIAs was good (92 to 100%; all but one assay had specificity above 95%). POCTs were 0 to 100% sensitive >21 days after onset, with specificity ranging from 96 to 100%. However, many POCTs had faint banding and were often difficult to interpret. Serology assays can detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as early as 10 days after symptom onset. Serology assays vary in their sensitivity based on the marker (IgA/IgM versus IgG versus total) and by manufacturer; however, overall only 4 EIAs and 4 POCTs had sensitivities of >95% >21 days after symptom onset. Cross-reactivity with other seasonal coronaviruses is of concern. Serology assays should not be used for the diagnosis of acute infection but rather in carefully designed serosurveys to facilitate understanding of seroprevalence in a population and to identify previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.