Quantification of the Tradeoff between Test Sensitivity and Test Frequency in a COVID-19 Epidemic-A Multi-Scale Modeling Approach.

Control strategies that employ real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for the diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19 epidemic are inefficient in fighting the epidemic due to high cost, delays in obtaining results, and the need of specialized personnel and equipment for laboratory processing. Cheaper and faster alternatives, such as antigen and paper-strip tests, have been proposed. They return results rapidly, but have lower sensitivity thresholds for detecting virus. To quantify the effects of the tradeoffs between sensitivity, cost, testing frequency, and delay in test return on the overall course of an outbreak, we built a multi-scale immuno-epidemiological model that connects the virus profile of infected individuals with transmission and testing at the population level. We investigated various randomized testing strategies and found that, for fixed testing capacity, lower sensitivity tests with shorter return delays slightly flatten the daily incidence curve and delay the time to the peak daily incidence. However, compared with RT-PCR testing, they do not always reduce the cumulative case count at half a year into the outbreak. When testing frequency is increased to account for the lower cost of less sensitive tests, we observe a large reduction in cumulative case counts, from 55.4% to as low as 1.22% half a year into the outbreak. The improvement is preserved even when the testing budget is reduced by one half or one third. Our results predict that surveillance testing that employs low-sensitivity tests at high frequency is an effective tool for epidemic control.

A comparison on the percentage of polymerase chain reaction positivity for SARS-CoV-2 between Public Health Center referrals and direct walk-in patients: A single center retrospective analysis in Tokyo.

INTRODUCTION: The Public Health Center (PHC)-known as hokenjo in Japan-assume a crucial role in disease control. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of many designated infectious diseases monitored by the agency. During the present pandemic, patients who suspected COVID-19 were instructed to call the Coronavirus Consultation Center in the PHC prior to visiting the hospital. The aim of this study was to elucidate the differences in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity between PHC referrals and direct walk-in patients. METHODS: The present was a single-center, retrospective cohort study conducted at the Tokyo Metropolitan Hospital from March to September, 2020. Patients who received a PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 were included and categorized into the PHC referral or direct walk-in groups. The outcomes included the total number of patients undergoing PCR tests and the percentage of PCR positivity in each group. RESULTS: We identified 1680 patients (781 PHC referred and 899 direct walk-in groups). The percentage of PCR positivity did not significantly differ between the PHC referral and direct walk-in groups during the first wave (30.5% vs. 29.2%; p = 0.78). PCR positivity was significantly higher in the PHC referral group than the direct walk-in group during the second wave (30.1% vs. 23.1%; p = 0.051) and entire study period (30.2% vs. 24.7%; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Despite health authority recommendations, the number of direct walk-in patients were higher than PHC referral patients. The percentage of PCR positivity was significantly higher in the PHC referral group than in the direct walk-in group.

Increased Intensity Of PCR Testing Reduced COVID-19 Transmission Within Countries During The First Pandemic Wave.

Experts agree that reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is critical in controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but decision makers disagree on how much testing is optimal. Controlling for interventions and ecological factors, we used linear regression to quantify testing's impact on COVID-19's average reproduction number, which represents transmissibility, in 173 countries and territories (which account for 99 percent of the world's COVID-19 cases) during March-June 2020. Among interventions, PCR testing had the greatest influence: a tenfold increase in the ratio of tests to new cases reported reduced the average reproduction number by 9 percent across a range of testing levels. Our results imply that mobility reductions (for example, shelter-in-place orders) were less effective in developing countries than in developed countries. Our results help explain how some nations achieved near-elimination of COVID-19 and the failure of lockdowns to slow COVID-19 in others. Our findings suggest that the testing benchmarks used by the World Health Organization and other entities are insufficient for COVID-19 control. Increased testing and isolation may represent the most effective, least costly alternative in terms of money, economic growth, and human life for controlling COVID-19.

Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 positivity of infected and recovered patients from a single center.

Recurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive detection in infected but recovered individuals has been reported. Patients who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could profoundly impact the health care system. We sought to define the kinetics and relevance of PCR-positive recurrence during recovery from acute COVID-19 to better understand risks for prolonged infectivity and reinfection. A series of 414 patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection, at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China from January 11 to April 23, 2020. Statistical analyses were performed of the clinical, laboratory, radiologic image, medical treatment, and clinical course of admission/quarantine/readmission data, and a recurrence predictive algorithm was developed. 16.7% recovered patients with PCR positive recurring one to three times, despite being in strict quarantine. Younger patients with mild pulmonary respiratory syndrome had higher risk of PCR positivity recurrence. The recurrence prediction model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.786. This case series provides characteristics of patients with recurrent SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Use of a prediction algorithm may identify patients at high risk of recurrent SARS-CoV-2 positivity and help to establish protocols for health policy.

Initial SARS-CoV-2 PCR crossing point does not predict hospitalization and duration of PCR positivity.

This study aimed to determine if the crossing point of the initial positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test correlated with patient demographics, subsequent hospitalization, or duration of positivity. Seventy-three patients with two or more positive PCR tests had a median time of 23 days to two consecutive negative results.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

BACKGROUND: While molecular techniques remain the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, serological tests have the unique potential to ascertain how much of the population has been exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. There have been limited published studies to date documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: We compared the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG and Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays using 228 samples spanning patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, patients with compatible symptoms but negative PCR, pre-COVID specimens, and potential cross-reactives. RESULTS: Both assays detected antibodies in 18/19 samples collected at least one week after a positive PCR result. Neither method consistently detected antibodies in specimens collected within one week of a positive PCR result (sensitivity < 50%), but antibodies were detected by only Roche in four samples in this time frame. Using 139 pre-COVID and 35 PCR-negative samples, the Roche and DiaSorin assays demonstrated specificities of 100.0% and 98.9%, respectively. Neither assay demonstrated cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43), respiratory pathogens (adenovirus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus), or antibodies to other viruses (HIV, EBV, CMV, HBV, HCV, HAV). DISCUSSION: Overall, the qualitative interpretations afforded by the Roche and DiaSorin assays agreed for 97% of samples evaluated. Minor discrepancies in sensitivity and specificity were observed between methods, with the differences in specificity more clinically significant for our low-prevalence population. For the DiaSorin assay, all disagreements with the Roche assay occurred in samples with quantitative signals near the cut-off determining positivity.

Evaluation of an Electrochemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assay.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the performance of the Roche novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody (anti-SARS-CoV-2) assay. We provide an extensive evaluation of this fully automated assay on Cobas e801/e602 immunoassay analyzers. METHODS: We assessed the linearity, precision, and throughput of the Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay. Sensitivity was calculated from 349 SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive samples; specificity was determined from 715 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-naive samples. We examined cross-reactivity against other antibody positive samples [syphilis, rheumatoid factor (RF), antinuclear antibody (ANA), double-stranded DNA (ds-DNA), influenza, dengue, hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV)] and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 kinetics. RESULTS: The assay cut-off index (COI) was linear up to 90.8. The interassay precision was 2.9% for a negative control (COI = 0.1) and 5.1% for a positive control (COI = 3.0). Assay time is 18 min and results are available 1 min later; throughput for 300 samples was 76 min. Only 1 case positive for HBsAg tested falsely positive; specificity was 99.9%. The assay has a sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after PCR positivity (POS) and 100% at ≥21 days POS; 48.2% of cases had anti-SARS-CoV-2 within 6 days POS. In 11 patients in whom serum was available prior to a positive antibody signal (COI ≥1.0) the interval between the last negative and first positive COI (time to "seroconversion") on average is 3 days (range 1-6 days) and 4 more days (range 1-7) for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 to plateau. CONCLUSION: The Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay shows excellent performance with minimal cross-reactivity from other viral and confounding antibodies. Antibody development and seroconversion appears quite early.

Diagnostic groups and short-term outcomes in suspected COVID-19 cases treated in an emergency department. / Categorías diagnósticas y resultados a corto plazo en los pacientes con sospecha de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to describe the clinical characteristics and 30-day mortality rates in emergency department patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in different diagnostic groupings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID-19 registry compiled by the emergency department of Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, Spain. We selected suspected COVID-19 cases treated in the emergency department between February 28 and March 31, 2020. The cases were grouped as follows: 1) suspected, no polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (S/no-PCR); 2) suspected, negative PCR (S/PCR-); 3) suspected, positive PCR (S/PCR+); 4) highly suspected, no PCR, or negative PCR (HS/no or PCR-); and 5) highly suspected, positive PCR (HS/PCR+). We collected clinical, radiologic, and microbiologic data related to the emergency visit. The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and clinical severity of the episode. RESULTS: A total of 1993 cases (90.9%) were included as follows: S/no-PCR, 17.2%; S/PCR-, 11.4%; S/PCR+, 22.1%; HS/no PCR or PCR-, 11.7%; and HS/PCR+, 37.6%. Short-term outcomes differed significantly in the different groups according to demographic characteristics; comorbidity and clinical, radiographic, analytical, and therapeutic variables. Thirty-day mortality was 11.5% (56.5% in hospitalized cases and 19.6% in cases classified as severe). The 2 HS categories and the S/PCR+ category had a greater adjusted risk for 30-day mortality and for having a clinically severe episode during hospitalization in comparison with S/PCR- cases. Only the 2 HS categories showed greater risk for hospitalization than the S/PCR- cases. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 diagnostic groups differ according to clinical and laboratory characteristics, and the differences are associated with the 30-day prognosis.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo principal fue describir el perfil clínico y la mortalidad a los 30 días de diferentes categorías diagnósticas en los casos de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias (SU). METODO: Análisis secundario del registro COVID-19_URG-HCSC. Se seleccionaron los casos sospechosos de COVID-19 atendidos en un SU de Madrid desde el 28 de febrero hasta el 31 de marzo de 2020. La muestra se dividió: 1) sospecha con PCR no realizada (S/PCR NR); 2) sospecha con PCR negativa (S/PCR­); 3) sospecha con PCR positiva (S/ PCR+); 4) alta sospecha con PCR negativa o no realizada (AS/PCR­ o NR); y 5) alta sospecha con PCR positiva (AS/ PCR+). Se recogieron variables clínicas, radiológicas y microbiológicas del episodio de urgencias. La variable de resultado principal fue la mortalidad por cualquier causa a los 30 días. Las variables secundarias fueron el ingreso y la gravedad del episodio. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 1.993 pacientes; 17,2% S/PCR NR, 11,4% S/PCR­, 22,1% S/PCR+, 11,7% AS/PCR­ o NR y 37,6% AS/PCR+. Se hallaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas respecto a las variables demográficas, comorbilidad, clínicas, radiográficas, analíticas y terapéuticas y de resultados a corto plazo en función las categorías diagnósticas. La mortalidad global a los 30 días fue de un 11,5%, 56,5% casos fueron hospitalizados y 19,6% casos sufrieron un episodio grave. Las categorías de AS y de S/PCR+ tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de mortalidad a los 30 días y de sufrir un episodio grave durante el ingreso hospitalario respecto a S/PCR­. En relación al ingreso, solo las categorías de AS tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de hospitalización respecto a la categoría de S/PCR­. CONCLUSIONES: Existen diferentes categorías diagnósticas de la enfermedad COVID-19 en función del perfil clínico y microbiológico que tienen correlato con el pronóstico a 30 días.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Laboratory Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was formally characterized as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented demand for healthcare resources. The purpose of this study was to identify changes in laboratory test utilization in the setting of increasing local incidence of COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective assessment of laboratory test order and specimen container utilization at a single, urban tertiary care medical center. Data were extracted from the laboratory information system database over a 10-week period, spanning the primordial inflection of COVID-19 incidence in our region. Total testing volumes were calculated during the first 2 and last 2 weeks of the observation period and used as reference points to examine the absolute and relative differences in test order volume between the prepandemic and COVID-19 surge periods. RESULTS: Between February 2, 2020, and April 11, 2020, there were 873 397 tests ordered and final verified. The in-house SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate for admitted patients in the last week of the observation period was 30.8%. Significant increases in workload were observed in the send-out laboratory section and for COVID-19 diagnosis (PCR) and management-related testing. Otherwise, there was a net decrease in overall demand across nearly all laboratory sections. Increases in testing were noted for tests related to COVID-19 management. Viral transport media and citrated blue top containers demonstrated increases in utilization. CONCLUSION: Increasing local incidence of COVID-19 had a profound impact on laboratory operations. While volume increases were seen for laboratory tests related to COVID-19 diagnostics and management, including some with limited evidence to support their use, overall testing volumes decreased substantially. During events such as COVID-19, monitoring of such patterns can help inform laboratory management, staffing, and test stewardship recommendations for managing resource and supply availability.

Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms.

The ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract ceases after 2 to 3 weeks post-symptom-onset in most patients. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the stool of some patients for greater than 4 weeks, suggesting that stool may hold utility as an additional source for diagnosis. We validated the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Hologic Panther Fusion real-time RT-PCR assays for detection of viral RNA in stool specimens and compared performance. We utilized remnant stool specimens (n = 79) from 77 patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Forty-eight patients had PCR-confirmed COVID-19, and 29 either were nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR negative or presented for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 and were not tested. Positive percent agreement between the Cepheid and Hologic assays was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.1% to 98.2%), and negative percent agreement was 96% (95% CI: 89% to 0.99%). Four discrepant specimens (Cepheid positive only, n = 2; Hologic positive only, n = 2) exhibited average cycle threshold (CT ) values of >37 for the targets detected. Of the 48 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, 23 were positive by both assays (47.9%). For the negative patient group, 2/29 were positive by both assays (6.9%). The two stool PCR-positive, nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR-negative patients were SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive. Our results demonstrate acceptable agreement between two commercially available molecular assays and support the use of stool PCR to confirm diagnosis when SARS-CoV-2 is undetectable in the upper respiratory tract.

Clinical characteristics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on a cruise ship.

BACKGROUND: A large COVID-19 outbreak occurred on the cruise ship Diamond Princess in February 2020. Little information has been reported about the clinical characteristics of the patients. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective, observational study was conducted in Yokohama, Japan. We included symptomatic patients who were infected on the ship and admitted to our hospital between 5 and 19 February 2020. All the cases were confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). RESULTS: We confirmed 17 cases. The average age was 69 years; 10 patients were Asian and 7 were Caucasian. Eleven patients had one or more chronic diseases. The major symptoms were cough and fever. Chest computed tomography (CT) scans found bilateral ground-glass opacities predominantly in the peripheral area, which were similar to reports from cases in China. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were higher in severe and critical cases than in mild to moderate cases. The moderate to severe cases reached symptomatic resolution; one of the three critical cases resulted in death due to multiple organ failure. SARS-CoV-2 was detected by PCR at an average of 7 days after symptomatic resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Cough and fever, increased blood CRP levels, and CT findings of bilateral ground-glass opacities predominantly in the peripheral lung were characteristic of the COVID-19 cases in this study. These findings were compatible with those of previous reports.