Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine breakthrough infections: A single metro-based testing network experience.

Objectives: Understanding the incidence and characteristics that influence severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine breakthrough infections (VBIs) is imperative for developing public health policies to mitigate the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We examined these factors and post-vaccination mitigation practices in individuals partially and fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Materials and methods: Adults >18 years old were voluntarily enrolled from a single metro-based SARS-CoV-2 testing network from January to July 2021. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic, and as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated. All participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection based on standard of care (SOC) testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. Variant analysis by rRT-PCR was performed in a subset of time-matched vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A subgroup of partially and fully vaccinated individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was contacted to assess disease severity and post-vaccination mitigation practices. Results: Participants (n = 1,317) voluntarily underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the enrollment period. A total of 29.5% of the population received at least one SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (n = 389), 12.8% partially vaccinated (n = 169); 16.1% fully vaccinated (n = 213). A total of 21.3% of partially vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 36) and 9.4% of fully vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 20) for SARS-CoV-2. Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA-1273 was the predominant vaccine received (1st dose = 66.8%, 2nd dose = 67.9%). Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated (partially/fully) group compared to the unvaccinated group (p = 0.003, p = 0.021, respectively). There were more asymptomatic individuals in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group [n = 6 (10.7%), n = 16 (4.1%), p = 0.045]. CT values were lower for the unvaccinated group (median 24.3, IQR 19.1-30.5) compared to the vaccinated group (29.4, 22.0-33.7, p = 0.004). In the vaccinated group (n = 56), 18 participants were successfully contacted, 7 were lost to follow-up, and 2 were deceased. A total of 50% (n = 9) required hospitalization due to COVID-19 illness. Adherence to nationally endorsed mitigation strategies varied post-vaccination. Conclusion: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at this center was 21.3% in the partially vaccinated group and 9.4% in the fully vaccinated group. Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive group, suggesting that these may be risk factors for VBIs. Partially and fully vaccinated individuals had a higher incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and higher CT values compared to unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine breakthrough infections: A single metro-based testing network experience

Objectives Understanding the incidence and characteristics that influence severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine breakthrough infections (VBIs) is imperative for developing public health policies to mitigate the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We examined these factors and post-vaccination mitigation practices in individuals partially and fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Materials and methods Adults >18 years old were voluntarily enrolled from a single metro-based SARS-CoV-2 testing network from January to July 2021. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic, and as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated. All participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection based on standard of care (SOC) testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. Variant analysis by rRT-PCR was performed in a subset of time-matched vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A subgroup of partially and fully vaccinated individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was contacted to assess disease severity and post-vaccination mitigation practices. Results Participants (n = 1,317) voluntarily underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the enrollment period. A total of 29.5% of the population received at least one SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (n = 389), 12.8% partially vaccinated (n = 169);16.1% fully vaccinated (n = 213). A total of 21.3% of partially vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 36) and 9.4% of fully vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 20) for SARS-CoV-2. Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA-1273 was the predominant vaccine received (1st dose = 66.8%, 2nd dose = 67.9%). Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated (partially/fully) group compared to the unvaccinated group (p = 0.003, p = 0.021, respectively). There were more asymptomatic individuals in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group [n = 6 (10.7%), n = 16 (4.1%), p = 0.045]. CT values were lower for the unvaccinated group (median 24.3, IQR 19.1–30.5) compared to the vaccinated group (29.4, 22.0–33.7, p = 0.004). In the vaccinated group (n = 56), 18 participants were successfully contacted, 7 were lost to follow-up, and 2 were deceased. A total of 50% (n = 9) required hospitalization due to COVID-19 illness. Adherence to nationally endorsed mitigation strategies varied post-vaccination. Conclusion The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at this center was 21.3% in the partially vaccinated group and 9.4% in the fully vaccinated group. Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive group, suggesting that these may be risk factors for VBIs. Partially and fully vaccinated individuals had a higher incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and higher CT values compared to unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.

Pulmonary and Critical Care Considerations for e-Cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the United States experienced a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). More than one-half of these patients required admission to an ICU. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the recent literature and expert opinions which inform the diagnosis and management of patients with critical illness with EVALI? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To synthesize information critical to pulmonary/critical care specialists in the care of patients with EVALI, this study examined data available from patients hospitalized with EVALI between August 2019 and January 2020; reviewed the clinical course and critical care experience with those patients admitted to the ICU; and compiled opinion of national experts. RESULTS: Of the 2,708 patients with confirmed or probable EVALI requiring hospitalization as of January 21, 2020, a total of 1,604 (59.2%) had data available on ICU admission; of these, 705 (44.0%) were admitted to the ICU and are included in this analysis. The majority of ICU patients required respiratory support (88.5%) and in severe cases required intubation (36.1%) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (6.7%). The majority (93.0%) of these ICU patients survived to discharge. Review of the clinical course and expert opinion provided insight into: imaging; considerations for bronchoscopy; medical treatment, including use of empiric antibiotics, antiviral agents, and corticosteroids; respiratory support, including considerations for intubation, positioning maneuvers, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and patient outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Review of the clinical course of patients with EVALI requiring ICU admission and compilation of expert opinion provided critical insight into pulmonary/critical care-specific considerations for this patient population. Because a large proportion of patients hospitalized with EVALI required ICU admission, it is important to remain prepared to care for patients with EVALI.

Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): A point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: An ideal test for COVID-19 would combine the sensitivity of laboratory-based PCR with the speed and ease of use of point-of-care (POC) or home-based rapid antigen testing. We evaluated clinical performance of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 POC rapid PCR test. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with and without symptoms of COVID-19 at four clinical sites where we collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs and information on COVID-19 symptoms, vaccination, and exposure. One swab was tested with the DASH SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR and the second in a central laboratory using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We assessed test concordance and calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values using Xpert as the "gold standard". RESULTS: We enrolled 315 and analyzed 313 participants with median age 42 years; 65% were female, 62% symptomatic, 75% had received ≥2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and 16% currently SARS-CoV-2 positive. There were concordant results for 307 tests indicating an overall agreement for DASH of 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 0.99] compared to Xpert. DASH performed at 0.96 [95% CI 0.86, 1.00] sensitivity and 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 1.00] specificity, with a positive predictive value of 0.85 [95% CI 0.73, 0.96] and negative predictive value of 0.996 [95% CI 0.99, 1.00]. The six discordant tests between DASH and Xpert all had high Ct values (>30) on the respective positive assay. DASH and Xpert Ct values were highly correlated (R = 0.89 [95% CI 0.81, 0.94]). CONCLUSIONS: DASH POC SARS-CoV-2 PCR was accurate, easy to use, and provided fast results (approximately 15 minutes) in real-life clinical settings with an overall performance similar to an EUA-approved laboratory-based PCR.

Dysregulated naive B cells and de novo autoreactivity in severe COVID-19.

Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection1 has been associated with highly inflammatory immune activation since the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic2-5. More recently, these responses have been associated with the emergence of self-reactive antibodies with pathologic potential6-10, although their origins and resolution have remained unclear11. Previously, we and others have identified extrafollicular B cell activation, a pathway associated with the formation of new autoreactive antibodies in chronic autoimmunity12,13, as a dominant feature of severe and critical COVID-19 (refs. 14-18). Here, using single-cell B cell repertoire analysis of patients with mild and severe disease, we identify the expansion of a naive-derived, low-mutation IgG1 population of antibody-secreting cells (ASCs) reflecting features of low selective pressure. These features correlate with progressive, broad, clinically relevant autoreactivity, particularly directed against nuclear antigens and carbamylated proteins, emerging 10-15 days after the onset of symptoms. Detailed analysis of the low-selection compartment shows a high frequency of clonotypes specific for both SARS-CoV-2 and autoantigens, including pathogenic autoantibodies against the glomerular basement membrane. We further identify the contraction of this pathway on recovery, re-establishment of tolerance standards and concomitant loss of acute-derived ASCs irrespective of antigen specificity. However, serological autoreactivity persists in a subset of patients with postacute sequelae, raising important questions as to the contribution of emerging autoreactivity to continuing symptomology on recovery. In summary, this study demonstrates the origins, breadth and resolution of autoreactivity in severe COVID-19, with implications for early intervention and the treatment of patients with post-COVID sequelae.

Don't forget about human factors: Lessons learned from COVID-19 point-of-care testing.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the development of point-of-care (POC) diagnostic testing accelerated in an unparalleled fashion. As a result, there has been an increased need for accurate, robust, and easy-to-use POC testing in a variety of non-traditional settings (i.e., pharmacies, drive-thru sites, schools). While stakeholders often express the desire for POC technologies that are "as simple as digital pregnancy tests," there is little discussion of what this means in regards to device design, development, and assessment. The design of POC technologies and systems should take into account the capabilities and limitations of the users and their environments. Such "human factors" are important tenets that can help technology developers create POC technologies that are effective for end-users in a multitude of settings. Here, we review the core principles of human factors and discuss lessons learned during the evaluation process of SARS-CoV-2 POC testing.

The RADx Tech Test Verification Core and the ACME POCT in the Evaluation of COVID-19 Testing Devices: A Model for Progress and Change.

Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, the US system for developing and testing technologies was challenged in unparalleled ways. This article describes the multi-institutional, transdisciplinary team of the "RADxSM Tech Test Verification Core" and its role in expediting evaluations of COVID-19 testing devices. Expertise related to aspects of diagnostic testing was coordinated to evaluate testing devices with the goal of significantly expanding the ability to mass screen Americans to preserve lives and facilitate the safe return to work and school. Focal points included: laboratory and clinical device evaluation of the limit of viral detection, sensitivity, and specificity of devices in controlled and community settings; regulatory expertise to provide focused attention to barriers to device approval and distribution; usability testing from the perspective of patients and those using the tests to identify and overcome device limitations, and engineering assessment to evaluate robustness of design including human factors, manufacturability, and scalability.

eARDS: A multi-center validation of an interpretable machine learning algorithm of early onset Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) among critically ill adults with COVID-19.

We present an interpretable machine learning algorithm called 'eARDS' for predicting ARDS in an ICU population comprising COVID-19 patients, up to 12-hours before satisfying the Berlin clinical criteria. The analysis was conducted on data collected from the Intensive care units (ICU) at Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, GA and University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN and the Cerner® Health Facts Deidentified Database, a multi-site COVID-19 EMR database. The participants in the analysis consisted of adults over 18 years of age. Clinical data from 35,804 patients who developed ARDS and controls were used to generate predictive models that identify risk for ARDS onset up to 12-hours before satisfying the Berlin criteria. We identified salient features from the electronic medical record that predicted respiratory failure among this population. The machine learning algorithm which provided the best performance exhibited AUROC of 0.89 (95% CI = 0.88-0.90), sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI = 0.75-0.78), specificity 0.85 (95% CI = 085-0.86). Validation performance across two separate health systems (comprising 899 COVID-19 patients) exhibited AUROC of 0.82 (0.81-0.83) and 0.89 (0.87, 0.90). Important features for prediction of ARDS included minimum oxygen saturation (SpO2), standard deviation of the systolic blood pressure (SBP), O2 flow, and maximum respiratory rate over an observational window of 16-hours. Analyzing the performance of the model across various cohorts indicates that the model performed best among a younger age group (18-40) (AUROC = 0.93 [0.92-0.94]), compared to an older age group (80+) (AUROC = 0.81 [0.81-0.82]). The model performance was comparable on both male and female groups, but performed significantly better on the severe ARDS group compared to the mild and moderate groups. The eARDS system demonstrated robust performance for predicting COVID19 patients who developed ARDS at least 12-hours before the Berlin clinical criteria, across two independent health systems.

Multidisciplinary assessment of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antigen test in the context of emerging viral variants and self-administration.

While there has been significant progress in the development of rapid COVID-19 diagnostics, as the pandemic unfolds, new challenges have emerged, including whether these technologies can reliably detect the more infectious variants of concern and be viably deployed in non-clinical settings as "self-tests". Multidisciplinary evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW, a widely used rapid antigen test, included limit of detection, variant detection, test performance across different age-groups, and usability with self/caregiver-administration. While BinaxNOW detected the highly infectious variants, B.1.1.7 (Alpha) first identified in the UK, B.1.351 (Beta) first identified in South Africa, P.1 (Gamma) first identified in Brazil, B.1.617.2 (Delta) first identified in India and B.1.2, a non-VOC, test sensitivity decreased with decreasing viral loads. Moreover, BinaxNOW sensitivity trended lower when devices were performed by patients/caregivers themselves compared to trained clinical staff, despite universally high usability assessments following self/caregiver-administration among different age groups. Overall, these data indicate that while BinaxNOW accurately detects the new viral variants, as rapid COVID-19 tests enter the home, their already lower sensitivities compared to RT-PCR may decrease even more due to user error.