Detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant by SYBR Green-based RT-qPCR.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unceasingly spreading across the globe, and recently a highly transmissible Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant (B.1.1.529) has been discovered in South Africa and Botswana. Rapid identification of this variant is essential for pandemic assessment and containment. However, variant identification is mainly being performed using expensive and time-consuming genomic sequencing. In this study, we propose an alternative RT-qPCR approach for the detection of the Omicron BA.1 variant using a low-cost and rapid SYBR Green method. We have designed specific primers to confirm the deletion mutations in the spike (S Δ143-145) and the nucleocapsid (N Δ31-33) which are characteristics of this variant. For the evaluation, we used 120 clinical samples from patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, and displaying an S-gene target failure (SGTF) when using TaqPath COVID-19 kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA) that included the ORF1ab, S, and N gene targets. Our results showed that all the 120 samples harbored S Δ143-145 and N Δ31-33, which was further confirmed by whole-genome sequencing of 10 samples, thereby validating our SYBR Green-based protocol. This protocol can be easily implemented to rapidly confirm the diagnosis of the Omicron BA.1 variant in COVID-19 patients and prevent its spread among populations, especially in countries with high prevalence of SGTF profile.

The Role of Bronchoalveolar Lavage in the Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Report of Three Cases.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) initially infects and replicates in epithelial cells of the nasopharynx where there are relatively high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which correlates with the highest sensitivity time point of the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during the first week, with subsequent decline thereafter. As viral shedding progresses throughout the respiratory tract, the virus can be detectable for up to 30 days in bronchoalveolar fluids. This report presents three cases of acute respiratory distress in the setting of multifocal pneumonia, with multiple false-negative NPS SARS-CoV-2/RT-PCR but positive SARS-CoV-2/RT-PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples. Molecular RT-PCR testing remains the gold standard in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the diagnostic accuracy of NPS RT-PCR may be affected by several factors. SARS-CoV-2/RT-PCR in BAL samples increases the diagnostic yield for coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia; however, it is not widely available in many institutions and can be clinically challenging to perform. A multimodal approach is required for prompt diagnosis, especially in patients with a progressive disease, where a delay in therapy can be clinically detrimental.

Borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients: the trace behind.

BACKGROUND: Effective and precise SARS-CoV-2 detection assays are crucial for maintaining regular hospital routines and identifying infected hospital employees and infected patients before hospital admission. Inconclusive PCR test results of potentially infectious borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients can confuse clinicians and delay appropriate infection control. OBJECTIVES AND STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective study, we followed up borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients who were tested (from the second sample with the same method) at the Clinical Department of Clinical Microbiology. We aimed to determine the positivity conversion ratio within 7 days after inconclusive PCR test results. RESULTS: Out of 247 borderline patients, who were resampled and retested in the same laboratory, 60 patients (29.4%) showed conversion of the borderline viral load (inconclusive RT-PCR test) to a positive RT-PCR test result. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need for retesting of borderline patients with inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 results. Follow-up testing of inconclusive PCR results within 7 days can identify additional positive results and reduce the potential risk of intrahospital transmission.

Diagnostic Efficacy of RealStar SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in Comparison to GeneXpert System for the Detection of COVID-19.

Background and objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a major health concern due to the rapid transmission of the virus that causes it: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). To address the growing demand on healthcare systems to control this pandemic, more effective diagnostic methods need to be applied. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) versus the GeneXpert® system. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the central lab of King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data from all nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) (150,000) submitted for SARS-CoV-2 analysis from July 2020 to July 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Furthermore, all NPS (n=384) that were analyzed on both the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and GeneXpert® systems for confirmatory purposes were included in the study. Acute respiratory illness (ARI) screening forms of the selected samples were reviewed from the electronic database (BestCare system), and they were analyzed and compared at one point in time; therefore, a cross-sectional study was found to be the best suitable study design. Using the statistical analysis software, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was obtained to compare the sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The test was considered significant if the area under the curve (AUC) value was >0.5. Results The diagnostic performance of the RealStar® and GeneXpert® assays in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated using ROC curve analysis, which showed AUCs of 0.597 and 0.637, respectively. In addition, 35% of the total results fell into a substantial agreement of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.6626-0.8732). The majority of the NPS were reported negative by both RealStar® (246, 80.66%) and GeneXpert® (226, 74.10%). Most samples (210, 68.85%) were obtained from asymptomatic patients, scoring less than 4 (ARI <4) based on the ARI screening form. Conclusion Based on the AUC of ROC, there is no significant difference in the performance characteristics between the RealStar® RT-PCR and GeneXpert® in detecting COVID-19.

Delayed SARS-COV-2 clearance in infected persons in Ghana

Objective: This study aimed to determine the duration of SARS-CoV-2 clearance in persons in Ghana. The research question was whether the duration of virus clearance in Ghana matched the 14 days recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO); this had direct implications for transmission, which was key in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: This was a retrospective analytical study. Setting: All facilities that submitted clinical specimens to Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis between March to June 2020 were included in the study. Interventions: Samples from 480 persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR from March to June 2020 at NMIMR and submitted at least two follow-up samples were retrospectively analysed. Individuals with two consecutive negative RT-PCR retesting results were considered to have cleared SARS-CoV-2. Results: The median time from the initial positive test to virus clearance was 20 days (IQR: 5-56 days). This was six days longer than the WHO-recommended 14 days, after which infected persons could be de-isolated. Sputum and nasopharyngeal swabs proved more sensitive for detecting viral RNA as the infection progressed. At a significance level of 0.05, age and sex did not seem to influence the time to SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Conclusions: The median time to SARS-CoV-2 clearance in this study was 20 days, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 infected persons in Ghana take longer to clear the virus. This finding calls for further investigations into whether patients who remain PCR positive continue to be infectious and inform isolation practices in Ghana.

Comparison of Initial CT Findings and CO-RADS Stage in COVID-19 Patients with PCR, Inflammation and Coagulation Parameters in Diagnostic and Prognostic Perspectives.

Objectives: This study aims to determine whether COVID-19 patients with different initial reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), computed tomography (CT) and laboratory findings have different clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: In this multi-center retrospective cohort study, 895 hospitalized patients with the diagnosis of COVID-19 were included. According to the RT-PCR positivity and presence of CT findings, the patients were divided into four groups. These groups were compared in terms of mortality and need for intensive care unit (ICU). According to the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS), all patients' CT images were staged. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between CO-RADS and predictive inflammation and coagulation parameters. Results: RT-PCR test positivity was 51.5%, the CT finding was 70.7%, and 49.7% of the patients were in the CO-RADS 5 stage. The need for ICU and mortality rates was higher in the group with only CT findings compared to the group with only RT-PCR positivity, (14.9% vs. 4.0%, p < 0.001; 9.3% vs. 3.3%, p > 0.05; respectively). Mortality was 3.27 times higher in patients with CO-RADS 4 compared to those with CO-RADS 1-2. Being in the CO-RADS 4 stage and LDH were discovered to be the most efficient parameters in determining mortality risk. Conclusion: Performing only the RT-PCR test in the initial evaluation of patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to overlooking groups that are more at risk for severe disease. The use of a chest CT to perform CO-RADS staging would be beneficial in terms of providing both diagnostic and prognostic information.

Performance of STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 Assay for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 from a Nasopharyngeal Swab.

The STANDARD™ M10 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay (M10 assay) (SD Biosensor Inc., Suwon, Korea) is a rapid, fully-automated, cartridge-type molecular diagnostic assay that detects SARS-CoV-2 RNA using primers and probes for each target gene (ORF1ab gene, E gene). This study evaluated its performance by assessing its concordance with the approved SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR assay. Tests were performed on 80 nasopharyngeal samples. The sensitivity and specificity of the M10 assay were 100%. The M10 assay effectively diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it was comparable to the approved SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR assay. It is a viable point-of-care test due to its short turnaround time.

Patient characteristics associated with conversion from negative to positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 polymerase chain reaction test results: Implications for clinical false-negativity from a single-center: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 is essential to limiting transmission within healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to identify patient demographic and clinical characteristics that could impact the clinical sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, matched case-control study of patients who underwent repeated nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR testing at a tertiary care academic medical center between March 1 and July 23, 2020. The primary endpoint was conversion from negative to positive PCR status within 14 days. We conducted conditional logistic regression modeling to assess the associations between demographic and clinical features and conversion to test positivity. RESULTS: Of 51,116 patients with conclusive SARS-CoV2 nasopharyngeal RT-PCR results, 97 patients converted from negative to positive within 14 days. We matched those patients 1:2 to 194 controls by initial test date. In multivariate analysis, clinical suspicion for a respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 20.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1-141.2) and lack of pulmonary imaging (aOR 4.7, 95% CI: 1.03-21.8) were associated with conversion, while a lower burden of comorbidities trended toward an increased odds of conversion (aOR 2.2, 95% CI: 0.9-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection, especially in relatively healthy individuals, should raise concerns about a clinical false-negative result. We have identified several characteristics that should be considered when creating institutional infection prevention guidelines in the absence of more definitive data and should be included in future studies.

Prevalence and factors associated with symptom persistence: A prospective study of 429 mild COVID-19 outpatients.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent symptoms have recently emerged as a clinical issue in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the prevalence and risk factors in symptomatic non-hospitalized individuals with mild COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients, from March to May 2020, with weekly phone calls from clinical onset until day 30 and up to day 60 in case of persistent symptoms. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with complete recovery at day 30 and day 60 and factors associated with persistent symptoms. RESULTS: We enrolled 429 individuals mostly women (72.5%) and healthcare workers (72.5%), with a median age of 41.6 years [IQR 30-51.5]. Symptoms included: cough (69.7%), asthenia (68.8%), anosmia (64.8%), headaches (64.6%), myalgia (62.7%), gastrointestinal symptoms (61.8%), fever (61.5%), and ageusia (60.8%). Mean duration of disease was 27 days (95%CI: 25-29). The rate of persistent symptoms was 46.8% at day 30 and 6.5% at day 60 consisting in asthenia (32.6%), anosmia (32.6%), and ageusia (30.4%). The probability of complete recovery was 56.3% (95%CI: 51.7-61.1) at day 30 and 85.6% (95%CI: 81.2-89.4) at day 60. Factors associated with persistent symptoms were age>40 (HR 0.61), female sex (HR 0.70), low cycle threshold (HR 0.78), and ageusia (HR 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 - even in its mild presentation - led to persistent symptoms (up to one month) in nearly half of individuals. Identification of risk factors such as age, gender, ageusia and viral load is crucial for clinical management and argues for the development of antiviral agents.

Detección del SARS-CoV-2 mediante RT-qPCR utilizando saliva en pacientes ambulatorios con estudio de COVID-19

Resumen Introducción: La pandemia de COVID-19 ha afectado a millones de personas en todo el mundo. La identificación de sujetos infectados ha sido importante para el control. Objetivo: Evaluar el rendimiento de una reacción de polimerasa en cadena (RPC) cuantitativa en tiempo real (en inglés: RT-qPCR) para SARS-CoV-2, utilizando saliva como matriz en comparación con un hisopado nasofaríngeo (HNF). Metodología: Se reclutaron adultos en atención ambulatoria, la mayoría sintomáticos. Fueron estudiadas 530 muestras pareadas de saliva e HNF con RT-qPCR. Resultados: Fueron positivas 59 muestras de HNF y 54 de saliva. La sensibilidad con saliva fue 91%, especificidad 100%, el valor predictor positivo (VPP) 100%, valor predictor negativo (VPN) 98%. El índice Kappa fue de 0,95 y LR-0,08. En promedio, el umbral de ciclo (en inglés cycle threshold-CT) de la saliva fue 3,99 puntos más alto que los de HNF (p < 0,0001) mostrando que la carga viral (CV) es menor en saliva. La carga viral en ambas disminuyó con el tiempo después del inicio de los síntomas. El muestreo de saliva fue preferido por los sujetos en lugar de HNF. Conclusión: Este estudio demuestra que la RPC para SARS-CoV-2 utilizando saliva, es adecuada para el diagnóstico de COVID-19 en adultos ambulatorios, especialmente en la etapa temprana de los síntomas.

Abstract Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of people around the world. Part of control strategies is testing a large proportion of the population to identify and isolate the infected subjects. Aim: To evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 detection by the performance of a reverse transcription and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) against SARS-CoV-2, using saliva as a matrix compared to a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) to simplify obtaining a diagnostic sample. Methods: Adults in outpatient care were recruited, 95% of them symptomatic. We studied 530 paired saliva and NPS samples by SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR. Results: Fifty-nine individuals tested positive in NPS and 54 in saliva samples. Sensitivity for saliva sample was 91%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 98%. The Kappa index was 0.95 and LR-0.08. On average, the cycle threshold (CT) of saliva was 3.99 points higher than those of NPS (p < 0.0001) showing that viral load (VL) is lower in saliva than in NPS. Viral load in both decreased over the time after onset of symptoms. Saliva sampling was preferred by subjects instead of NPS. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR using saliva, even with lower VL, is suitable for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in outpatient adults, especially at early stage of symptoms.

Differing Sensitivity of COVID-19 PCR Tests and Consequences of the False-negative Report: A Small Observation.

The world at large cannot afford to miss even a single case of COVID-19 because of its far-reaching consequences; therefore, the diagnostic development to achieve test with much higher sensitivity should be made available at a mass level as early as possible. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Garg SK. Differing Sensitivity of COVID-19 PCR Tests and Consequences of the False-negative Report: A Small Observation. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(9):1077-1078.

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss in a post-COVID-19 patient.

A detailed history and diagnostic evaluation for recent or past COVID-19 infection is vital in patients presenting with Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL) since SSNHL could be a sequelae of COVID-19 and timely diagnosis and intervention could significantly improve hearing and quality of life.

Effectiveness of Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Outbreak among Horse Racetrack Workers, California, USA.

The Abbott BinaxNOW rapid antigen test is cheaper and faster than real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We compared BinaxNOW with rRT-PCR in 769 paired specimens from 342 persons during a coronavirus disease outbreak among horse racetrack workers in California, USA. We found positive percent agreement was 43.3% (95% CI 34.6%-52.4%), negative percent agreement 100% (95% CI 99.4%-100%), positive predictive value 100% (95% CI 93.5%-100%), and negative predictive value 89.9% (95% CI 87.5%-92.0%). Among 127 rRT-PCR-positive specimens, the 55 with paired BinaxNOW-positive results had a lower mean cycle threshold than the 72 with paired BinaxNOW-negative results (17.8 vs. 28.5; p<0.001). Of 100 specimens with cycle threshold <30, a total of 51 resulted in positive virus isolation; 45 (88.2%) of those were BinaxNOW-positive. Our comparison supports immediate isolation for BinaxNOW-positive persons and confirmatory testing for negative persons.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 N gene real-time RT-PCR targets and commercially available mastermixes.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of four different reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) master mixes on the performance of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCRs using three primer/probe assays targeting the N gene (A, B and C). The dynamic range and lowest detected quantity was determined using a SARS-CoV-2 partial N gene RNA transcript dilution series (100,000-1 copy/µl) and verified using 72 nose and throat swabs, 29 of which tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. RESULTS: Assay C consistently detected the lowest quantity of partial N gene RNA transcript with all mastermixes. The Takara One Step PrimeScript™ III RT-PCR Kit mastermix enabled all primer pairs to detect the entire dynamic range evaluated, with the Qiagen Quantifast and Thermofisher TaqPath 1-Step kits also performing well. Sequences from all three primer/probe sets tested in this study (assay A, B and C) have 100 % homology to ≥97 % of the of SARS-CoV-2 sequences available up to 31st December 2020 (n = 291,483 sequences). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates that specific assays (in this case assay C) can perform well in terms of dynamic range and lowest detected quantity regardless of the mastermix used. However we also show that, by choosing the most appropriate mastermix, poorer performing primer pairs are also able to detect all of the template dilutions investigated. This work increases the potential options when choosing assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and provides solutions to enable them to work with optimal analytical sensitivity.

Eastern Cape Healthcare Workers Acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 (ECHAS): Cross-Sectional (Nested Cohort) Study Protocol.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of infection by the virulent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Though data exist on the positivity rate of the SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as well as COVID-19-related deaths amongst HCWs in South Africa, the overall infection rate remains underestimated by these indicators. It is also unclear whether the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection offers durable protection against reinfection. This study will assess the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence amongst HCWs in the Eastern Cape (EC) and examine the longitudinal changes (rate of decay) in the antibody levels after infection in this cohort. Using a multi-stage cluster sampling of healthcare workers in selected health facilities in the EC, a cross-sectional study of 2250 participants will be recruited. In order to assess the community infection rate, 750 antenatal women in the same settings will be recruited. Relevant demographic and clinical characteristics will be obtained by a self-administered questionnaire. A chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) will be used for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. A nested cohort study will be conducted by performing eight-weekly antibody assays (X2) from 201 participants who tested positive for both SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and serology. Logistic regression models will be fitted to identify the independent risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate and infection fatality rate among the frontline HCWs will be estimated. In addition, the study will highlight the overall effectiveness of infection prevention and control measures (IPC) per exposure sites/wards at the selected health facilities. Findings will inform the South African Department of Health's policies on how to protect HCWs better as the country prepares for the second wave of the SARS-CoV pandemic.

The clinical sensitivity of a single SARS-CoV-2 upper respiratory tract RT-PCR test for diagnosing COVID-19 using convalescent antibody as a comparator.

The clinical false negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a single upper respiratory tract sample was calculated using convalescent antibody testing as a comparator. The sensitivity in symptomatic individuals was 86.2% (25/29). Of the missed cases, one (3.5%) was detected by repeat RT-PCR, one by CT thorax and two (7.1%) by convalescent antibody. The clinical false negative rate of a single RT-PCR on an upper respiratory tract sample of 14% in symptomatic patients is reassuring when compared to early reports. This report supports a strategy of combining repeat swabbing, use of acute and convalescent antibody testing and CT thorax for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Diagnostic yield of repeat testing for SARS-CoV-2: Experience from a large health system in Los Angeles.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic yield of repeat testing for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all SARS-CoV-2 test results within the UCLA Health System between March 9th and April 29th, 2020. All patients with repeat test results were identified and those with discordant results were reviewed. RESULTS: Between March 9th and April 29th there were 10,165 SARS-CoV-2 test results, of which 630 (6.2%) were positive. Among the 904 patients with repeat test results, 808 (89.4%) were initially negative and 96 (10.6%) were initially positive. Among the 808 patients with an initial negative test, 15 (1.9%) subsequently tested positive. Eleven cases with an initial negative SARS-CoV-2 test and without a known prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test were reviewed; 6 were employed as healthcare workers and 10 were positive on the second test. CONCLUSIONS: We found a low diagnostic yield of repeat testing for SARS-CoV-2 in our health system. Repeat testing might prove useful in certain clinical scenarios, such as in healthcare workers, when symptoms develop after a negative test, and in hospitalized patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19.