Isolation of Elizabethkingia anophelis From COVID-19 Swab Kits.

Purpose: To investigate and characterize the putative Elizabethkingia anophelis contaminant isolated from throat and anal swab samples of patients from three fever epidemic clusters, which were not COVID-19 related, in Shenzhen, China, during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Bacteria were cultured from throat (n = 28) and anal (n = 3) swab samples from 28 fever adolescent patients. The isolated bacterial strains were identified using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF/MS) and the VITEK2 automated identification system. Nucleic acids were extracted from the patient samples (n = 31), unopened virus collection kits from the same manufacturer as the patient samples (n = 35, blank samples) and from unopened throat swab collection kits of two other manufacturers (n = 22, control samples). Metagenomic sequencing and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) detection were performed. Blood serum collected from patients (n = 13) was assessed for the presence of antibodies to E. anophelis. The genomic characteristics, antibiotic susceptibility, and heat resistance of E. anophelis isolates (n = 31) were analyzed. Results: The isolates were identified by MALDI-TOF/MS and VITEK2 as Elizabethkingia meningoseptica. DNA sequence analysis confirmed isolates to be E. anophelis. The patients' samples and blank samples were positive for E. anophelis. Control samples were negative for E. anophelis. The sera from a sub-sample of 13 patients were antibody-negative for isolated E. anophelis. Most of the isolates were highly homologous and carried multiple ß-lactamase genes (bla B, bla GOB, and bla CME). The isolates displayed resistance to nitrofurans, penicillins, and most ß-lactam drugs. The bacteria survived heating at 56°C for 30 min. Conclusion: The unopened commercial virus collection kits from the same manufacturer as those used to swab patients were contaminated with E. anophelis. Patients were not infected with E. anophelis and the causative agent for the fevers remains unidentified. The relevant authorities were swiftly notified of this discovery and subsequent collection kits were not contaminated. DNA sequence-based techniques are the definitive method for Elizabethkingia species identification. The E. anophelis isolates were multidrug-resistant, with partial heat resistance, making them difficult to eradicate from contaminated surfaces. Such resistance indicates that more attention should be paid to disinfection protocols, especially in hospitals, to avoid outbreaks of E. anophelis infection.

Comparative evaluation of six nucleic acid amplification kits for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus, causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in December, 2019. As drugs and vaccines of COVID-19 remain in development, accurate virus detection plays a crucial role in the current public health crisis. Quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits have been reliably used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas isothermal nucleic acid amplification-based point-of-care automated kits have also been considered as a simpler and rapid alternative. However, as these kits have only been developed and applied clinically within a short timeframe, their clinical performance has not been adequately evaluated to date. We describe a comparative study between a newly developed cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA) kit (Kit A) and five RT-qPCR kits (Kits B-F) to evaluate their sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy. METHODS: Fifty-two clinical samples were used including throat swabs (n = 30), nasal swabs (n = 7), nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 7) and sputum specimens (n = 8), comprising confirmed (n = 26) and negative cases (n = 26). SARS-CoV-2 detection was simultaneously performed on each sample using six nucleic acid amplification kits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and the accuracy for each kit were assessed using clinical manifestation and molecular diagnoses as the reference standard. Reproducibility for RT-qPCR kits was evaluated in triplicate by three different operators using a SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive sample. On the basis of the six kits' evaluation results, CPA kit (Kit A) and two RT-qPCR Kits (Kit B and F) were applied to the SARS-CoV-2 detection in close-contacts of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: For Kit A, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were 100%. Among the five RT-qPCR kits, Kits B, C and F had good agreement with the clinical diagnostic reports (Kappa ≥ 0.75); Kits D and E were less congruent (0.4 ≤ Kappa < 0.75). Differences between all kits were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The reproducibility of RT-qPCR kits was determined using a coefficients of variation (CV) between 0.95% and 2.57%, indicating good reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comparative study to evaluate CPA and RT-qPCR kits' specificity and sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could serve as a reference for clinical laboratories, thus informing testing protocols amid the rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemic.

Viral RNA level, serum antibody responses, and transmission risk in recovered COVID-19 patients with recurrent positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test results: a population-based observational cohort study.

Managing recovered COVID-19 patients with recurrent-positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test results is challenging. We performed a population-based observational study to characterize the viral RNA level and serum antibody responses in recurrent-positive patients and evaluate their viral transmission risk. Of 479 recovered COVID-19 patients, 93 (19%) recurrent-positive patients were identified, characterized by younger age, with a median discharge-to-recurrent-positive length of 8 days. After readmission, recurrent-positive patients exhibited mild (28%) or absent (72%) symptoms, with no disease progression. The viral RNA level in recurrent-positive patients ranged from 1.8 to 5.7 log10 copies/mL (median: 3.2), which was significantly lower than the corresponding values at disease onset. There are generally no significant differences in antibody levels between recurrent-positive and non-recurrent-positive patients, or in recurrent-positive patients over time (before, during, or after recurrent-positive detection). Virus isolation of nine representative specimens returned negative results. Whole genome sequencing of six specimens yielded only genomic fragments. 96 close contacts and 1,200 candidate contacts of 23 recurrent-positive patients showed no clinical symptoms; their viral RNA (1,296/1,296) and antibody (20/20) tests were negative. After full recovery (no longer/never recurrent-positive), 60% (98/162) patients had neutralizing antibody titers of ≥1:32. Our findings suggested that an intermittent, non-stable excretion of low-level viral RNA may result in recurrent-positive occurrence, rather than re-infection. Recurrent-positive patients pose a low transmission risk, a relatively relaxed management of recovered COVID-19 patients is recommended.