Evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy based on serological tests.

BACKGROUND: facing the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic requires intensive testing on the population to early identify and isolate infected subjects. Although RT-PCR is the most reliable technique to detect ongoing infections, serological tests are frequently proposed as tools in heterogeneous screening strategies. OBJECTIVES: to analyse the performance of a screening strategy proposed by the local government of Tuscany (Central Italy), which first uses qualitative rapid tests for antibody detection, and then RT-PCR tests on the positive subjects. METHODS: a simulation study is conducted to investigate the number of RT-PCR tests required by the screening strategy and the undetected ongoing infections in a pseudo-population of 500,000 subjects, under different prevalence scenarios and assuming a sensitivity of the serological test ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 (specificity 0.98). A compartmental model is used to predict the number of new infections generated by the false negatives two months after the screening, under different values of the infection reproduction number. RESULTS: assuming a sensitivity equal to 0.80 and a prevalence of 0.3%, the screening procedure would require on average 11,167 RT-PCR tests and would produce 300 false negatives, responsible after two months of a number of contagions ranging from 526 to 1,132, under the optimistic scenario of a reproduction number between 0.5 to 1. Resources and false negatives increase with the prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: the analysed screening procedure should be avoided unless the prevalence and the rate of contagion are very low. The cost and effectiveness of the screening strategies should be evaluated in the actual context of the epidemic, accounting for the fact that it may change over time.

The Effect of Test Timing on the Probability of Positive SARS-CoV-2 Swab Test Results: Mixed Model Approach.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, swab tests proved to be effective in containing the infection and served as a means for early diagnosis and contact tracing. However, little evidence exists regarding the correct timing for the execution of the swab test, especially for asymptomatic individuals and health care workers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze changes in the positive findings over time in individual SARS-CoV-2 swab tests during a health surveillance program. METHODS: The study was conducted with 2071 health care workers at the University Hospital of Verona, with a known date of close contact with a patient with COVID-19, between February 29 and April 17, 2020. The health care workers underwent a health surveillance program with repeated swab tests to track their virological status. A generalized additive mixed model was used to investigate how the probability of a positive test result changes over time since the last known date of close contact, in an overall sample of individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 and in a subset of individuals with an initial negative swab test finding before being proven positive, to assess different surveillance time intervals. RESULTS: Among the 2071 health care workers in this study, 191 (9.2%) tested positive for COVID-19, and 103 (54%) were asymptomatic with no differences based on sex or age. Among 49 (25.7%) cases, the initial swab test yielded negative findings after close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Sex, age, symptoms, and the time of sampling were not different between individuals with an initial negative swab test finding and those who initially tested positive after close contact. In the overall sample, the estimated probability of testing positive was 0.74 on day 1 after close contact, which increased to 0.77 between days 5 and 8. In the 3 different scenarios for scheduled repeated testing intervals (3, 5, and 7 days) in the subgroup of individuals with an initially negative swab test finding, the probability peaked on the sixth, ninth and tenth, and 13th and 14th days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Swab tests can initially yield false-negative outcomes. The probability of testing positive increases from day 1, peaking between days 5 and 8 after close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Early testing, especially in this final time window, is recommended together with a health surveillance program scheduled in close intervals.

[Covid-19: Thomas Bayes warns and we should listen. False negatives and the probability of encountering them.] / Covid-19: Thomas Bayes ammonisce e noi dovremmo ascoltarlo. I falsi negativi al test e la probabilità d'incontrarli.

We believe that a high percentage of covid-19 infections could be due to the presence of false negative (FN) individuals on rapid swabs. To support this hypothesis and quantify their number, we performed simulations using Bayes' rule and various assumptions about the sensitivity, specificity of swabs and prevalence of infection. Imagining FNs in liberty, we then calculated the probability of encountering them in groups of people with a typical number of habitual sites, such as: bus, supermarket, theatre, etc. The probability of encountering FN from rapid tests was more than 3 times higher (345% change) that reported by the RT-PCR test.

Indeterminate mycobacterium tuberculosis QuantiFERON post Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccination.

We report an interesting case of an indeterminate MTB QuantiFERON for a 26-year-old healthy soldier planned for a routine field exercise to Brunei. Further medical history revealed that the patient had a Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccine the day before his MTB QuantiFERON test. The patient was subsequently asked to repeat a T-spot test which was non-reactive, there were no longer any issues with the positive control for the T-spot test. Current Covid-19 research suggests that infection causes a dysregulation of the immune system, perhaps this might also be extrapolated where a Covid-19 vaccine might provoke an immune response which might interfere with some immunological assays. In summary there should be more research invested into the immunological interactions that the newly developed Covid-19 vaccinations have with our existing immunological tests such as QuantiFERON tests which forms a key cornerstone in our fight against tuberculosis.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow tests for detecting infectious people: linked data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the proportion of lateral flow tests (LFTs) that produce negative results in those with a high risk of infectiousness from SARS-CoV-2, to investigate the impact of the stage and severity of disease, and to compare predictions made by influential mathematical models with findings of empirical studies. DESIGN: Linked data analysis combining empirical evidence of the accuracy of the Innova LFT, the probability of positive viral culture or transmission to secondary cases, and the distribution of viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals in different settings. SETTING: Testing of individuals with symptoms attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres across the UK, residents without symptoms attending municipal mass testing centres in Liverpool, and students without symptoms screened at the University of Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: Evidence for the sensitivity of the Innova LFT, based on 70 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 and LFT results. Infectiousness was based on viral culture rates on 246 samples (176 people with SARS-CoV-2) and secondary cases among 2 474 066 contacts; distributions of cycle threshold (Ct) values from 231 497 index individuals attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres; 70 people with SARS-CoV-2 detected in Liverpool and 62 people with SARS-CoV-2 in Birmingham (54 imputed). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The predicted proportions who were missed by LFT and viral culture positive and missed by LFT and sources of secondary cases, in each of the three settings. Predictions were compared with those made by mathematical models. RESULTS: The analysis predicted that of those with a viral culture positive result, Innova would miss 20% attending an NHS Test-and-Trace centre, 29% without symptoms attending municipal mass testing, and 81% attending university screen testing without symptoms, along with 38%, 47%, and 90% of sources of secondary cases. In comparison, two mathematical models underestimated the numbers of missed infectious individuals (8%, 10%, and 32% in the three settings for one model, whereas the assumptions from the second model made it impossible to miss an infectious individual). Owing to the paucity of usable data, the inputs to the analyses are from limited sources. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of infectious people with SARS-CoV-2 missed by LFTs is substantial enough to be of clinical importance. The proportion missed varied between settings because of different viral load distributions and is likely to be highest in those without symptoms. Key models have substantially overestimated the sensitivity of LFTs compared with empirical data. An urgent need exists for additional robust well designed and reported empirical studies from intended use settings to inform evidence based policy.

Investigation of discordant SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results using minimally processed saliva.

Saliva is an attractive sample for coronavirus disease 2019 testing due its ease of collection and amenability to detect viral RNA with minimal processing. Using a direct-to-RT-PCR method with saliva self-collected from confirmed COVID-19 positive volunteers, we observed 32% false negative results. Confirmed negative and healthy volunteer samples spiked with 106 genome copies/mL of heat-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 showed false negative results of 10% and 13%, respectively. Additional sample heating or dilution of the false negative samples conferred only modest improvements. These results highlight the potential to significantly underdiagnose COVID-19 infections when testing directly from minimally processed heterogeneous saliva samples.

Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 immune response in plasma.

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic persists, methods that can quickly and reliably confirm infection and immune status is extremely urgently and critically needed. In this contribution we show that combining laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) with machine learning can distinguish plasma of donors who previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR from those who did not, with up to 95% accuracy. The samples were also analyzed by LIBS-ICP-MS in tandem mode, implicating a depletion of Zn and Ba in samples of SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects that inversely correlate with CN lines in the LIBS spectra.

Efficacy of Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test Kit for SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal samples of 121 individuals working in a manufacturing company.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test Kit, a rapid immunochromatographic assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Moreover, we sought to point out the strategy adopted by a local company to lift the lockdown without leading to an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, by performing a precise and timely health surveillance. METHODS: The rapid Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test was performed immediately after sampling following the manufacturer's instructions. RT-PCRs were performed within 24 hours of specimen collection. A total amount of 253 nasopharyngeal samples from 121 individuals were collected between March 16 and April 2, 2021 and tested. RESULTS: Of 253 nasopharyngeal samples, 11 (9.1%) were positive and 242 (90.9%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR assays. The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test's mean sensitivity and specificity were 84,6% (95% CI, 54.6-98.1%) and 100% (95% CI, 98.6-100%), respectively. Two false negative test results were obtained from samples with high RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct). CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test can be introduced into daily diagnostic practice, as its mean sensitivity and specificity follow the standards recommended by WHO and IFCC Task Force. In addition, we underlined how the strategy adopted by a local company to risk assessment and health surveillance was appropriate for infection containment. This real-life scenario gave us the possibility to experience potential approaches aimed to preserve public health and work activities.

One-step and sequential SARSCOV-2 polymerase chain reaction tests would not work every time.

INTRODUCTION: RT-PCR is widely used as a diagnostic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we aim to describe the clinical utility of serial PCR testing in the final detection of COVID-19. METHOD: We collected multiple nasopharyngeal swab samples from patients who had negative RT-PCR test on the first day after hospitalization. RT-PCR tests were performed on the second day for all patients with initial negative result. For the patients with secondary negative results on day 2, tertiary RT-PCR tests were performed on day 3 after hospitalization. RESULT: Among 68 patients with initial negative test results, at the end of follow-up, the mortality number was 20 (29.4%). About 33.8% of patients had subsequent positive PCR test results for the second time and 17.4% of the patients who performed third PCR test had positive result. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, serial RT-PCR testing is unlikely to yield additional information.

Nucleocapsid (N) Gene Mutations of SARS-CoV-2 Can Affect Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic and Impact False-Negative Results.

The current COVID-19 pandemic demands massive testing by Real-time RT-PCR (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction), which is considered the gold standard diagnostic test for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, the virus continues to evolve with mutations that lead to phenotypic alterations as higher transmissibility, pathogenicity or vaccine evasion. Another big issue are mutations in the annealing sites of primers and probes of RT-PCR diagnostic kits leading to false-negative results. Therefore, here we identify mutations in the N (Nucleocapsid) gene that affects the use of the GeneFinder COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit. We sequenced SARS-CoV-2 genomes from 17 positive samples with no N gene detection but with RDRP (RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) and E (Envelope) genes detection, and observed a set of three different mutations affecting the N detection: a deletion of 18 nucleotides (Del28877-28894), a substitution of GGG to AAC (28881-28883) and a frameshift mutation caused by deletion (Del28877-28878). The last one cause a deletion of six AAs (amino acids) located in the central intrinsic disorder region at protein level. We also found this mutation in 99 of the 14,346 sequenced samples by the Sao Paulo state Network for Pandemic Alert of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, demonstrating the circulation of the mutation in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Continuous monitoring and characterization of mutations affecting the annealing sites of primers and probes by genomic surveillance programs are necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the diagnosis of COVID-19.

The diagnostic performance of deep-learning-based CT severity score to identify COVID-19 pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of a deep-learning (DL)-based algorithm using chest computed tomography (CT) scans for the rapid diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as compared to the reference standard reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, data of COVID-19 suspected patients who underwent RT-PCR and chest CT examination for the diagnosis of COVID-19 were assessed. By quantifying the affected area of the lung parenchyma, severity score was evaluated for each lobe of the lung with the DL-based algorithm. The diagnosis was based on the total lung severity score ranging from 0 to 25. The data were randomly split into a 40% training set and a 60% test set. Optimal cut-off value was determined using Youden-index method on the training cohort. RESULTS: A total of 1259 patients were enrolled in this study. The prevalence of RT-PCR positivity in the overall investigated period was 51.5%. As compared to RT-PCR, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy on the test cohort were 39.0%, 80.2%, 68.0%, 55.0% and 58.9%, respectively. Regarding the whole data set, when adding those with positive RT-PCR test at any time during hospital stay or "COVID-19 without virus detection", as final diagnosis to the true positive cases, specificity increased from 80.3% to 88.1% and the positive predictive value increased from 68.4% to 81.7%. CONCLUSION: DL-based CT severity score was found to have a good specificity and positive predictive value, as compared to RT-PCR. This standardized scoring system can aid rapid diagnosis and clinical decision making. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DL-based CT severity score can detect COVID-19-related lung alterations even at early stages, when RT-PCR is not yet positive.

Time scale performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: Evaluation of 10 rapid antigen assays.

There is a great demand for more rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection to reduce waiting time, boost public health strategies for combating disease, decrease costs, and prevent overwhelming laboratory capacities. This study was conducted to assess the performance of 10 lateral flow device viral antigen immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. We analyzed 231 nasopharyngeal samples collected from October 2020 to December 2020, from suspected COVID-19 cases and contacts of positive cases at Biotechnology Research Center laboratories, Tripoli, Libya. The performance of 10 COVID-19 Antigen (Ag) rapid test devices for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was compared to a quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). In this study, 161 cases had symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The mean duration from symptom onset was 6.6 ± 4.3 days. The median cycle threshold (Ct ) of positive samples was 25. Among the 108 positive samples detected by RT-qPCR, the COVID-19 antigen (Ag) tests detected 83 cases correctly. All rapid Ag test devices used in this study showed 100% specificity. While tests from six manufacturers had an overall sensitivity range from 75% to 100%, the remaining four tests had a sensitivity of 50%-71.43%. Sensitivity during the first 6 days of symptoms and in samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25), was 100% in all but two of the test platforms. False-negative samples had a median Ct of 34 and an average duration of onset of symptoms of 11.3 days (range = 5-20 days). Antigen test diagnosis has high sensitivity and specificity in early disease when patients present less than 7 days of symptom onset. Patients are encouraged to test as soon as they get COVID-19-related symptoms within 1 week and to seek medical advice within 24 h if they develop disturbed smell/taste. The use of rapid antigen tests is important for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and reducing the burden on molecular diagnostic laboratories.

Progression/remission of COVID-19: data-driven recommendations for repeating SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests.

AIMS: This short study was performed to better understand the time frame associated with changes in SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing and provide recommendations for repeat testing. Recommendations are useful as little guidance is available for repeat testing in patients being followed expectantly for changes in disease. METHODS: A review of laboratory data of tests for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was performed selecting patients who had changing results. Time between changes in test results was determined to provide guidance for repeat testing. RESULTS: The Interquartile Range (IQR) of data for patients who had a negative to positive change in laboratory testing (progression) was 6-16 days (median=9 days). The IQR of data for patients who had a positive to negative change in test results (remission) was 9-21 days (median=14 days). CONCLUSION: Because sampling of the nares or nasopharynx can be variable, repeat testing should be performed swiftly when symptomatic patients are negative. The data in this short study vary widely, so authors recommend repeat testing during a period of time associated with the IQR or median (see results above).

Optimizing and evaluating PCR-based pooled screening during COVID-19 pandemics.

Population screening played a substantial role in safely reopening the economy and avoiding new outbreaks of COVID-19. PCR-based pooled screening makes it possible to test the population with limited resources by pooling multiple individual samples. Our study compared different population-wide screening methods as transmission-mitigating interventions, including pooled PCR, individual PCR, and antigen screening. Incorporating testing-isolation process and individual-level viral load trajectories into an epidemic model, we further studied the impacts of testing-isolation on test sensitivities. Results show that the testing-isolation process could maintain a stable test sensitivity during the outbreak by removing most infected individuals, especially during the epidemic decline. Moreover, we compared the efficiency, accuracy, and cost of different screening methods during the pandemic. Our results show that PCR-based pooled screening is cost-effective in reversing the pandemic at low prevalence. When the prevalence is high, PCR-based pooled screening may not stop the outbreak. In contrast, antigen screening with sufficient frequency could reverse the epidemic, despite the high cost and the large numbers of false positives in the screening process.

Estimate false-negative RT-PCR rates for SARS-CoV-2. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Molecular-based tests used to identify symptomatic or asymptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 are characterized by high specificity but scarce sensitivity, generating false-negative results. We aimed to estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the rate of RT-PCR false negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase and CENTRAL as well as a list of reference literature. We included observational studies that collected samples from respiratory tract to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR, reporting the number of false-negative subjects and the number of final patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis. Reported rates of false negatives were pooled in a meta-analysis as appropriate. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies and graded the quality of evidence according to the GRADE method. All information in this article is current up to February 2021. RESULTS: We included 32 studies, enrolling more than 18,000 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. The overall false-negative rate was 0.12 (95%CI from 0.10 to 0.14) with very low certainty of evidence. The impact of misdiagnoses was estimated according to disease prevalence; a range between 2 and 58/1,000 subjects could be misdiagnosed with a disease prevalence of 10%, increasing to 290/1,000 misdiagnosed subjects with a disease prevalence of 50%. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed that up to 58% of COVID-19 patients may have initial false-negative RT-PCR results, suggesting the need to implement a correct diagnostic strategy to correctly identify suspected cases, thereby reducing false-negative results and decreasing the disease burden among the population.

Evaluation of a saliva molecular point of care for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care.

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97%, respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference tests, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in crude saliva samples with an RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number: NCT04578509.