Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests' Performance between Delta (B.1.61.7; AY.X) and Omicron (B.1.1.529; BA1) Variants of SARS-CoV-2: Secondary Analysis from a Serial Home Self-Testing Study

BackgroundThere is a need to understand the performance of rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDT) for detection of the Delta (B.1.61.7; AY.X) and Omicron (B.1.1.529; BA1) SARS-CoV-2 variants. MethodsParticipants without any symptoms were enrolled from October 18, 2021 to January 24, 2022 and performed Ag-RDT and RT-PCR tests every 48 hours for 15 days. This study represents a non-pre-specified analysis in which we sought to determine if sensitivity of Ag-RDT differed in participants with Delta compared to Omicron variant. Participants who were positive on RT-PCR on the first day of the testing period were excluded. Delta and Omicron variants were defined based on sequencing and date of first RT-PCR positive result (RT-PCR+). Comparison of Ag-RDT performance between the variants was based on sensitivity, defined as proportion of participants with Ag-RDT+ results in relation to their first RT-PCR+ result, for different duration of testing with rapid Ag-RDT. Subsample analysis was performed based on the result of participants second RT-PCR test within 48 hours of the first RT-PCR+ test. ResultsFrom the 7,349 participants enrolled in the parent study, 5,506 met the eligibility criteria for this analysis. A total of 153 participants were RT-PCR+ (61 Delta, 92 Omicron); among this group, 36 (23.5%) tested Ag-RDT+ on the same day, and 84 (54.9%) tested Ag-RDT+ within 48 hours as first RT-PCR+. The differences in sensitivity between variants were not statistically significant (same-day: Delta 16.4% [95% CI: 8.2-28.1] vs Omicron 28.2% [95% CI: 19.4-38.6]; and 48-hours: Delta 45.9% [33.1-59.2] vs. Omicron 60.9% [50.1-70.9]). This trend continued among the 86 participants who had consecutive RT-PCR+ result (48-hour sensitivity: Delta 79.3% [60.3-92.1] vs. Omicron: 89.5% [78.5-96.0]). Conversely, the 38 participants who had an isolated RT-PCR+ remained consistently negative on Ag-RDT, regardless of the variant. ConclusionsThe performance of Ag-RDT is not inferior among individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant as compared to the Delta variant. The improvement in sensitivity of Ag-RDT noted with serial testing is consistent between Delta and Omicron variant. Performance of Ag-RDT varies based on duration of RT-PCR+ results and more studies are needed to understand the clinical and public health significance of individuals who are RT-PCR+ for less than 48 hours.

Characterizing SARS-CoV-2 transcription of subgenomic and genomic RNAs during early human infection using multiplexed ddPCR

Control of SARS-CoV-2 (SCV-2) transmission is a major priority that requires understanding SCV-2 replication dynamics. We developed and validated novel droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays to quantify SCV-2 subgenomic RNAs (sgRNAs), which are only produced during active viral replication, and discriminate them from full-length genomic RNAs (gRNAs) in a multiplexed format. We applied this multiplex ddPCR assay to 144 cross-sectional nasopharyngeal samples. sgRNAs were quantifiable across a range of qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values and correlated with Ct values. The ratio of sgRNA:gRNA was remarkably stable across a wide range of Ct values, whereas adjusted amounts of N sgRNA to a human housekeeping gene declined with higher Ct values. Interestingly, adjusted sgRNA and gRNA amounts were quantifiable in culture-negative samples, although levels were significantly lower than in culture-positive samples. Longitudinal daily testing of 6 persons for up to 14 days revealed that sgRNA is concordant with culture results during the first week of infection but may be discordant with culture later in infection. Further, sgRNA:gRNA is constant during infection despite changes in viral culture. These data indicate stable viral transcription during infection. More work is needed to understand why cultures are negative despite persistence of viral RNAs.

Limitations of molecular and antigen test performance for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 contacts

ObjectivesCOVID-19 has brought unprecedented attention to the crucial role of diagnostics in pandemic control. We compared SARS-CoV-2 test performance by sample type and modality in close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases. MethodsClose contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were enrolled after informed consent. Clinician-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in viral transport media (VTM) were tested with a nucleic acid test (NAT). NP VTM and self-collected passive drool were tested using the PerkinElmer real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assay. For the first 4 months of study, mid-turbinate swabs were tested using the BD Veritor rapid antigen test. NAT positive NP samples were tested for infectivity using a VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. ResultsBetween November 17, 2020, and October 1, 2021, 235 close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases were recruited, including 95 with symptoms (82% symptomatic for <5 days) and 140 asymptomatic individuals. NP swab reference tests were positive for 53 (22.6%) participants; 24/50 (48%) were culture positive. PerkinElmer testing of NP and saliva samples identified an additional 28 (11.9%) SARS-CoV-2 cases who tested negative by clinical NAT. Antigen tests performed for 99 close contacts showed 83% positive percent agreement (PPA) with reference NAT among early symptomatic persons, but 18% PPA in others; antigen tests in 8 of 11 (72.7%) culture-positive participants were positive. ConclusionsContacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases may be falsely negative early after contact, which more sensitive platforms may identify. Repeat or serial SARS-CoV-2 testing with both antigen and molecular assays may be warranted for individuals with high pretest probability for infection.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on inpatient clinical outcome

BackgroundPrior observation has shown differences in COVID-19 hospitalization rates between SARS-CoV-2 variants, but limited information describes differences in hospitalization outcomes. MethodsPatients admitted to 5 hospitals with COVID-19 were included if they had hypoxia, tachypnea, tachycardia, or fever, and data to describe SARS-CoV-2 variant, either from whole genome sequencing, or inference when local surveillance showed [≥]95% dominance of a single variant. The average effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant on 14-day risk of severe disease, defined by need for advanced respiratory support, or death was evaluated using models weighted on propensity scores derived from baseline clinical features. ResultsSevere disease or death within 14 days occurred for 950 of 3,365 (28%) unvaccinated patients and 178 of 808 (22%) patients with history of vaccination or prior COVID-19. Among unvaccinated patients, the relative risk of 14-day severe disease or death for Delta variant compared to ancestral lineages was 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.55). Compared to Delta variant, this risk for Omicron patients was 0.78 (95% CI 0.62-0.97) and compared to ancestral lineages was 1.04 (95% CI 0.84-1.24). Among Omicron and Delta infections, patients with history of vaccination or prior COVID-19 had one-half the 14-day risk of severe disease or death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.46, IQR 0.34-0.62) but no significant outcome difference between Delta and Omicron infections. ConclusionsAlthough the risk of severe disease or death for unvaccinated patients with Omicron was lower than Delta, it was similar to ancestral lineages. Severe outcomes were less common in vaccinated patients, but there was no difference between Delta and Omicron infections.

High Sensitivity and NPV for BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test in Children at a Mass Testing Site During Prevalent Delta Variant

SARS-CoV-2 continues to develop new, increasingly infectious variants including delta and omicron. We evaluated the efficacy of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test against Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction ("RT-PCR") in 1054 pediatric participants presenting to a high-volume Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing site while the delta variant was predominant. Participants were grouped by COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. RT-PCR demonstrated an overall prevalence of 5.2%. For all participants, sensitivity of the BinaxNOW was 92.7% (95% CI 82.4%-98.0%) and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 97.0%-98.8%). For symptomatic participants, positive predictive value (PPV) was 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-86.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI 98.2%-100%). Among asymptomatic participants, PPV was 71.4% (95% CI 53.7%-85.4%) and NPV was 99.7% (95% CI 99.0%-100%). Our reported sensitivity and NPV are higher than other pediatric studies, potentially because of higher viral load from the delta variant, but specificity and PPV are lower. ImportanceThe BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of nearly 92% in both symptomatic and asymptomatic children when performed at a high-throughput setting during the more transmissible delta variant dominant period. The test may play an invaluable role in asymptomatic screening and keeping children safe in school.

Preclinical and clinical validation of a novel injected molded swab for molecular assay detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, many actions have been undertaken to help ensure that patients and health care providers had timely and continued access to high-quality medical devices to respond effectively. The development and validation of new testing supplies and equipment, including collection swab, help expand the availability and capability for various diagnostic, therapeutic, and protective medical devices in high demand during the COVID-19 emergency. Here, we report the validation of a new injection-molded anterior nasal swab, ClearTip, that was experimentally validated in a laboratory setting as well as in independent clinical studies in comparison to gold standard flocked swabs. We have also developed an in vitro anterior nasal tissue model, that offers an efficient and clinically relevant validation tool to replicate with high fidelity the clinical swabbing workflow, while being accessible, safe, reproducible, time and cost effective. ClearTip displayed a greater efficiency of release of inactivated virus in the benchtop model, confirmed by greater ability to report positive samples in a clinical study in comparison to flocked swabs. We also quantified in multi-center pre-clinical and clinical studies the detection of biological materials, as proxy for viral material, that showed a statistically significant difference in one study and a slight reduction in performance in comparison to flocked swabs. Taken together these results underscore the compelling benefits of non-absorbent injected molded anterior nasal swab for COVID-19 detection, comparable to standard flocked swabs. Injection-molded swabs, as ClearTip, could have the potential to support future swab shortage, due to its manufacturing advantages, while offering benefits in comparison to highly absorbent swabs in terms comfort, limited volume collection, and potential multiple usage.

Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections reveal limited infectious virus shedding and restricted tissue distribution

The global effort to vaccinate people against SARS-CoV-2 in the midst of an ongoing pandemic has raised questions about the nature of vaccine breakthrough infections and the potential for vaccinated individuals to transmit the virus. These questions have become even more urgent as new variants of concern with enhanced transmissibility, such as Delta, continue to emerge. To shed light on how vaccine breakthrough infections compare with infections in immunologically naive individuals, we examined viral dynamics and infectious virus shedding through daily longitudinal sampling in a small cohort of adults infected with SARS-CoV-2 at varying stages of vaccination. The durations of both infectious virus shedding and symptoms were significantly reduced in vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals. We also observed that breakthrough infections are associated with strong tissue compartmentalization and are only detectable in saliva in some cases. These data indicate that vaccination shortens the duration of time of high transmission potential, minimizes symptom duration, and may restrict tissue dissemination.

Mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission at a Large Public University

In the Fall of 2020, many universities saw extensive transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among their populations, threatening the health of students, faculty and staff, the viability of in-person instruction, and the health of surrounding communities.1, 2 Here we report that a multimodal "SHIELD: Target, Test, and Tell" program mitigated the spread of SARS-CoV-2 at a large public university, prevented community transmission, and allowed continuation of in-person classes amidst the pandemic. The program combines epidemiological modelling and surveillance (Target); fast and frequent testing using a novel and FDA Emergency Use Authorized low-cost and scalable saliva-based RT-qPCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 that bypasses RNA extraction, called covidSHIELD (Test); and digital tools that communicate test results, notify of potential exposures, and promote compliance with public health mandates (Tell). These elements were combined with masks, social distancing, and robust education efforts. In Fall 2020, we performed more than 1,000,000 covidSHIELD tests while keeping classrooms, laboratories, and many other university activities open. Generally, our case positivity rates remained less than 0.5%, we prevented transmission from our students to our faculty and staff, and data indicate that we had no spread in our classrooms or research laboratories. During this fall semester, we had zero COVID-19-related hospitalizations or deaths amongst our university community. We also prevented transmission from our university community to the surrounding Champaign County community. Our experience demonstrates that multimodal transmission mitigation programs can enable university communities to achieve such outcomes until widespread vaccination against COVID-19 is achieved, and provides a roadmap for how future pandemics can be addressed.

Daily sampling of early SARS-CoV-2 infection reveals substantial heterogeneity in infectiousness

The dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 replication and shedding in humans remain poorly understood. We captured the dynamics of infectious virus and viral RNA shedding during acute infection through daily longitudinal sampling of 60 individuals for up to 14 days. By fitting mechanistic models, we directly estimate viral reproduction and clearance rates, and overall infectiousness for each individual. Significant person-to-person variation in infectious virus shedding suggests that individual-level heterogeneity in viral dynamics contributes to superspreading. Viral genome load often peaked days earlier in saliva than in nasal swabs, indicating strong compartmentalization and suggesting that saliva may serve as a superior sampling site for early detection of infection. Viral loads and clearance kinetics of B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 viruses in nasal swabs were indistinguishable, however B.1.1.7 exhibited a significantly slower pre-peak growth rate in saliva. These results provide a high-resolution portrait of SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics and implicate individual-level heterogeneity in infectiousness in superspreading.

Sex and gender differences in COVID testing, hospital admission, presentation, and drivers of severe outcomes in the DC/Maryland region

Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSRates of severe illness and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 are greater for males, but the mechanisms for this difference are unclear. Understanding the differences in outcomes between males and females across the age spectrum will guide both public health and biomedical interventions. MethodsRetrospective cohort analysis of SARS-CoV-2 testing and admission data in a health system. Patient-level data were assessed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression modeling was used to identify features associated with increased male risk of severe outcomes. ResultsIn 213,175 SARS-CoV-2 tests, despite similar positivity rates (8.2%F vs 8.9%M), males were more frequently hospitalized (28%F vs 33%M). Of 2,626 hospitalized individuals, females had less severe presenting respiratory parameters and males had more fever. Comorbidity burden was similar, but with differences in specific conditions. Medications relevant for SARS-CoV-2 were used at similar frequency except tocilizumab (M>F). Males had higher inflammatory lab values. In a logistic regression model, male sex was associated with a higher risk of severe outcomes at 24 hours (odds ratio (OR) 3.01, 95%CI 1.75, 5.18) and at peak status (OR 2.58, 95%CI 1.78,3.74) among 18-49 year-olds. Block-wise addition of potential explanatory variables demonstrated that only the inflammatory labs substantially modified the OR associated with male sex across all ages. ConclusionHigher levels of clinical inflammatory labs are the only features that are associated with the heightened risk of severe outcomes and death for males in COVID-19. Trial registrationNA FundingHopkins inHealth; COVID-19 Administrative Supplement (HHS Region 3 Treatment Center), Office of the ASPR; NIH/NCI U54CA260492 (SK), NIH/NIA U54AG062333 (SK).

Longitudinal assessment of diagnostic test performance over the course of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection

What is already known about this topic?Diagnostic tests and sample types for SARS-CoV-2 vary in sensitivity across the infection period. What is added by this report?We show that both RTqPCR (from nasal swab and saliva) and the Quidel SARS Sofia FIA rapid antigen tests peak in sensitivity during the period in which live virus can be detected in nasal swabs, but that the sensitivity of RTqPCR tests rises more rapidly in the pre-infectious period. We also use empirical data to estimate the sensitivities of RTqPCR and antigen tests as a function of testing frequency. What are the implications for public health practice?RTqPCR tests will be more effective than rapid antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (provided results reporting is timely). All modalities, including rapid antigen tests, showed >94% sensitivity to detect infection if used at least twice per week. Regular surveillance/screening using rapid antigen tests 2-3 times per week can be an effective strategy to achieve high sensitivity (>95%) for identifying infected individuals.

Effectiveness of remdesivir with and without dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

RationaleRemdesivir and dexamethasone reduced the severity of COVID-19 in clinical trials. However, their individual or combined effectiveness in clinical practice remains unknown. ObjectivesTo examine the effectiveness of remdesivir with or without dexamethasone. MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study between March 4 and August 29, 2020. Eligible COVID cases were hospitalized patients treated with remdesivir with or without dexamethasone. We applied a Cox proportional hazards model with propensity score matching to estimate the effect of these treatments on clinical improvement by 28 days (discharge or a 2-point decrease in WHO severity score) and 28-day mortality. Measurements and Main ResultsOf 2485 COVID-19 patients admitted between March 4 and August 29, 2020, 342 received remdesivir and 157 received remdesivir plus dexamethasone. Median age was 60 years; 45% were female; 81% were non-white. Remdesivir recipients on room air or nasal cannula oxygen had a faster time to clinical improvement (median 5.0 days [IQR 4.0, 8.0], remdesivir vs. 7.0 days [IQR 5.0, 12.0], control; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.55 [1.28; 1.87]), yet those requiring higher levels of respiratory support did not benefit. Remdesivir recipients had lower, but statistically insignificant, 28-day mortality (7.6% [23 deaths], remdesivir vs. 14.9% [45 deaths], control). Adding dexamethasone trended toward lower 28-day mortality compared to remdesivir alone (5.1% [8 deaths] vs. 9.2% [17 deaths]; aHR 0.14 [0.02; 1.03]). ConclusionsRemdesivir offered a significantly faster time to clinical improvement among a cohort of predominantly non-white patients hospitalized with COVID-19, particularly with mild-moderate disease. Remdesivir plus dexamethasone may reduce mortality.

Patient trajectories and risk factors for severe outcomes among persons hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Maryland/DC region

BackgroundRisk factors for poor outcomes from COVID-19 are emerging among US cohorts, but patient trajectories during hospitalization ranging from mild-moderate, severe, and death and the factors associated with these outcomes have been underexplored. MethodsWe performed a cohort analysis of consecutive COVID-19 hospital admissions at 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals in the Baltimore/DC area between March 4 and April 24, 2020. Disease severity and outcomes were classified using the WHO COVID-19 disease severity ordinal scale. Cox proportional-hazards regressions were performed to assess relationships between demographics, clinical features and progression to severe disease or death. Results832 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized; 633 (76.1%) were discharged, 113 (13.6%) died, and 85 (10.2%) remained hospitalized. Among those discharged, 518 (82%) had mild/moderate and 116 (18%) had severe illness. Mortality was statistically significantly associated with increasing age per 10 years (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.54; 95%CI 1.28-1.84), nursing home residence (aHR 2.13, 95%CI 1.41-3.23), Charlson comorbidity index (1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.26), respiratory rate (aHR 1.13; 95%CI 1.09-1.17), D-dimer greater than 1mg/dL (aHR 2.79; 95% 1.53-5.09), and detectable troponin (aHR 2.79; 95%CI 1.53-5.09). In patients under 60, only male sex (aHR 1.7;95%CI 1.11-2.58), increasing body mass index (BMI) (aHR1.25 1.14-1.37), Charlson score (aHR 1.27; 1.1-1.46) and respiratory rate (aHR 1.16; 95%CI 1.13-1.2) were associated with severe illness or death. ConclusionsA combination of demographic and clinical features on admission is strongly associated with progression to severe disease or death in a US cohort of COVID-19 patients. Younger patients have distinct risk factors for poor outcomes.