Combined Use of RT-qPCR and NGS for Identification and Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern in Residual Clinical Laboratory Samples in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) with increased transmissibility and immune escape capabilities, such as Delta and Omicron, have triggered waves of new COVID-19 infections worldwide, and Omicron subvariants continue to represent a global health concern. Tracking the prevalence and dynamics of VOCs has clinical and epidemiological significance and is essential for modeling the progression and evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Next generation sequencing (NGS) is recognized as the gold standard for genomic characterization of SARS-CoV-2 variants, but it is labor and cost intensive and not amenable to rapid lineage identification. Here we describe a two-pronged approach for rapid, cost-effective surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs by combining reverse-transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and periodic NGS with the ARTIC sequencing method. Variant surveillance by RT-qPCR included the commercially available TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit to track S-gene target failure (SGTF) associated with the spike protein deletion H69-V70, as well as two internally designed and validated RT-qPCR assays targeting two N-terminal-domain (NTD) spike gene deletions, NTD156-7 and NTD25-7. The NTD156-7 RT-qPCR assay facilitated tracking of the Delta variant, while the NTD25-7 RT-qPCR assay was used for tracking Omicron variants, including the BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 lineages. In silico validation of the NTD156-7 and NTD25-7 primers and probes compared with publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genome databases showed low variability in regions corresponding to oligonucleotide binding sites. Similarly, in vitro validation with NGS-confirmed samples showed excellent correlation. RT-qPCR assays allow for near-real-time monitoring of circulating and emerging variants allowing for ongoing surveillance of variant dynamics in a local population. By performing periodic sequencing of variant surveillance by RT-qPCR methods, we were able to provide ongoing validation of the results obtained by RT-qPCR screening. Rapid SARS-CoV-2 variant identification and surveillance by this combined approach served to inform clinical decisions in a timely manner and permitted better utilization of sequencing resources.

Permissive omicron breakthrough infections in individuals with binding or neutralizing antibodies to ancestral SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Breakthrough infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) has occurred in populations with high vaccination rates. METHODS: In a longitudinal cohort study, pre-breakthrough infection sera for Omicron breakthroughs (n = 12) were analyzed. Assays utilized include a laboratory-developed solid phase binding assay to recombinant spike protein, a commercial assay to the S1 domain of the spike protein calibrated to the World Health Organization (WHO) standard, and a commercial solid-phase surrogate neutralizing activity (SNA) assay. All assays employed spike protein preparations based on sequences from the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain. RESULTS: Pre-breakthrough binding antibody titers ranged from 1:800 to 1:51,200 for the laboratory-developed binding assay, which correlated well and agreed quantitatively with the commercial spike S1 domain WHO calibrated assay. SNA was detected in 10/12 (83%) samples. CONCLUSIONS: Neither high binding titers nor SNA were markers of protection from Omicron infection/re-infection.

Is the Omicron variant truly less virulent in solid organ transplant recipients?

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at high risk for severe disease with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Emerging variants of concern have disproportionately affected this population. Data on severity and outcomes with the Omicron variant in SOT recipients are limited. Thus we conducted this single-center, retrospective cohort study of SOT recipients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection from December 18, 2021 to January 18, 2022, when prevalence of the Omicron variant was more than 80%-95% in the community. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for hospital admission. We identified 166 SOT patients: 112 (67.5%) kidney, 22 (13.3%) liver, 10 (6.0%) lung, seven (4.2%) heart, and 15 (9.0%) combined transplants. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series was completed in 59 (35.5%) recipients. Ninety-nine (59.6%) and 13 (7.8%) recipients received casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab, respectively. Fifty-three (32%) recipients required hospital admission, of which 19 (35.8%) required intensive care unit level of care. Median follow-up was 50 (interquartile range, 25-59) days, with mortality reported in six (3.6%) patients. Risk factors identified for hospital admission were African American race (p < .001, odds ratio [OR] 4.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84-8.70), history of coronary artery disease (p = .031, OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.12-10.87), and maintenance immunosuppression with corticosteroids (p = .048, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.01-4.00). In conclusion, contrary to that in the general population, we found a higher hospital admission rate in SOT recipients with omicron variant infection. Further studies to investigate the efficacy of newer treatments are necessary, even as outcomes continue to improve.

SARS-CoV-2 and Variant Diagnostic Testing Approaches in the United States.

Purpose of Review Given the rapid development of diagnostic approaches to test for and diagnose infection with SARS-CoV-2 and its associated variants including Omicron (B.1.1.529), many options are available to diagnose infection. Multiple established diagnostic companies are now providing testing platforms whereas initially, testing was being performed with simple PCR-based tests using standard laboratory reagents. Recent Findings Additional testing platforms continue to be developed, including those to detect specific variants, but challenges with testing, including obtaining testing reagents and other related supplies, are frequently encountered. With time, the testing supply chain has improved, and more established companies are providing materials to support these testing efforts. In the United States (U.S.), the need for rapid assay development and subsequent approval through the attainment of emergency use authorization (EUA) has superseded the traditional arduous diagnostic testing approval workflow mandated by the FDA. Through these efforts, the U.S. has been able to continue to significantly increase its testing capabilities to address this pandemic; however, challenges still remain due to the diversity of the performance characteristics of tests being utilized and newly discovered viral variants. Summary This review provides an overview of the current diagnostic testing landscape, with pertinent information related to SARS-CoV-2 virology, variants and antibody responses that are available to diagnose infection in the U.S.

Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Given the rapid development of diagnostic approaches to test for and diagnose infection with SARS-CoV-2, many options are available to assess infection. Multiple established diagnostic companies are now providing testing platforms whereas initially, testing was being performed with simple PCR-based tests using standard laboratory reagents. RECENT FINDINGS: Additional testing platforms continue to be developed but challenges with testing, including obtaining testing reagents and other related supplies, are frequently encountered. With time, the testing supply chain will improve and more companies will be providing materials to support these testing efforts. In the USA, the need for rapid assay development and subsequent approval through attainment of emergency use authorization (EUA) has superseded the traditional arduous diagnostic testing approval workflow mandated by the FDA. It is anticipated that the USA will be able to continue to significantly increase its testing capabilities to address this pandemic; however, challenges remain due to the diversity of the performance characteristics of tests being utilized. SUMMARY: This review provides an overview of the current diagnostic testing landscape, with pertinent information related to SARS-CoV-2 virology and antibody responses, that is available to diagnose infection.

Recovery does not always signal the end of the battle: A case of post SARS-CoV-2 multisystem inflammatory syndrome in an adult.

We describe a case of SARS-CoV-2 post-infectious inflammatory syndrome in an adult who presented with multiorgan failure two months following his initial diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This case highlights clinician's early recognition of this devastating sequela and challenges in appropriate management of this patient.

Differential T-Cell Reactivity to Endemic Coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 in Community and Health Care Workers.

Herein we measured CD4+ T-cell responses against common cold coronaviruses (CCC) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in high-risk health care workers (HCW) and community controls. We observed higher levels of CCC-reactive T cells in SARS-CoV-2-seronegative HCW compared to community donors, consistent with potential higher occupational exposure of HCW to CCC. We further show that SARS-CoV-2 T-cell reactivity of seronegative HCW was higher than community controls and correlation between CCC and SARS-CoV-2 responses is consistent with cross-reactivity and not associated with recent in vivo activation. Surprisingly, CCC T-cell reactivity was decreased in SARS-CoV-2-infected HCW, suggesting that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might interfere with CCC responses, either directly or indirectly. This result was unexpected, but consistently detected in independent cohorts derived from Miami and San Diego. CD4+ T-cell responses against common cold coronaviruses (CCC) are elevated in SARS-CoV-2 seronegative high-risk health care workers (HCW) compared to COVID-19 convalescent HCW, suggesting that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might interfere with CCC responses and/or cross-reactivity associated with a protective effect.

Field-deployable, rapid diagnostic testing of saliva for SARS-CoV-2.

To safely re-open economies and prevent future outbreaks, rapid, frequent, point-of-need, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is necessary. However, existing field-deployable COVID-19 testing methods require the use of uncomfortable swabs and trained providers in PPE, while saliva-based methods must be transported to high complexity laboratories for testing. Here, we report the development and clinical validation of High-Performance Loop-mediated isothermal Amplification (HP-LAMP), a rapid, saliva-based, SARS-CoV-2 test with a limit of detection of 1.4 copies of virus per µl of saliva and a sensitivity and specificity with clinical samples of > 96%, on par with traditional RT-PCR based methods using swabs, but can deliver results using only a single fluid transfer step and simple heat block. Testing of 120 patient samples in 40 pools comprised of 5 patient samples each with either all negative or a single positive patient sample was 100% accurate. Thus, HP-LAMP may enable rapid and accurate results in the field using saliva, without need of a high-complexity laboratory.

A How-to Guide to Building a Robust SARS-CoV-2 Testing Program at a University-Based Health System.

When South Florida became a hot spot for COVID-19 disease in March 2020, we faced an urgent need to develop test capability to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assembled a transdisciplinary team of knowledgeable and dedicated physicians, scientists, technologists, and administrators who rapidly built a multiplatform, polymerase chain reaction- and serology-based detection program, established drive-through facilities, and drafted and implemented guidelines that enabled efficient testing of our patients and employees. This process was extremely complex, due to the limited availability of needed reagents, but outreach to our research scientists and multiple diagnostic laboratory companies, and government officials enabled us to implement both Food and Drug Administration authorized and laboratory-developed testing-based testing protocols. We analyzed our workforce needs and created teams of appropriately skilled and certified workers to safely process patient samples and conduct SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing. We initiated smart test ordering, interfaced all testing platforms with our electronic medical record, and went from zero testing capacity to testing hundreds of health care workers and patients daily, within 3 weeks. We believe our experience can inform the efforts of others when faced with a crisis situation.

Discordance Between Radiologic Findings and Molecular Testing in Patients With Underlying Hematologic Malignancy and Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with severe disease in patients with hematologic malignancy. We report a series of patients with underlying hematologic malignancy and coronavirus disease of 2019 with discrepancy between radiographic findings and molecular testing. Initial chest x-ray findings should raise suspicion in immunosuppressed patients with typical clinical presentation even with negative initial testing.

False-positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction screening for SARS-CoV-2 in the setting of urgent head and neck surgery and otolaryngologic emergencies during the pandemic: Clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: No reports describe falsepositive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for novel coronavirus in preoperative screening. METHODS: Preoperative patients had one or two nasopharyngeal swabs, depending on low or high risk of viral transmission. Positive tests were repeated. RESULTS: Forty-three of 52 patients required two or more preoperative tests. Four (9.3%) had discrepant results (positive/negative). One of these left the coronavirus disease (COVID) unit against medical advice despite an orbital abscess, with unknown true disease status. The remaining 3 of 42 (7.1%) had negative repeat RT-PCR. Although ultimately considered falsepositives, one was sent to a COVID unit postoperatively and two had urgent surgery delayed. Assuming negative repeat RT-PCR, clear chest imaging, and lack of subsequent symptoms represent the "gold standard," RT-PCR specificity was 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: If false positives are suspected, we recommend computed tomography (CT) of the chest and repeat RT-PCR. Validated serum immunoglobulin testing may ultimately prove useful.