Prolonged infective SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant shedding in a patient with diffuse large B cell lymphoma successfully cleared after three courses of remdesivir

We report a case of prolonged shedding of the infective SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant BA.1.1.2 in a 79-year-old male patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, after receiving chemotherapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP). The patient was admitted to our hospital in late March 2022 for the sixth course of R-CHOP chemotherapy. Initially, the patient tested negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using an in-hospital loop-mediated amplification assay with a nasopharyngeal swab, both on the day of admission and three days later. However, the patient developed fever and was diagnosed with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) six days after admission and was suspected to have contracted the infection in the ward. Viral shedding continued for more than three months, with confirmed viral infectivity. As compared to the original Wuhan-Hu-1/2019 strain, amino acid substitutions including S36 N in non-structural protein (NSP)2, S148P, S1265del and L1266I in NSP3, G105D in NSP4, G496S, A831V, or V987F in spike protein, and I45T in open-reading frame (ORF)9b were randomly detected in isolated viruses. Although the patient had received two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine approximately six months earlier and the third dose on day 127 after the infection, both serum anti-spike and anti-nuclear protein IgG and IgM tests were negative at day 92, 114, and 149 after the infection. The patient finally cleared the virus after the third course of remdesivir and did not have further recurrence.     

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among Coworkers in a Surgical Environment

Health care workers are at high risk for contracting coronavirus disease 2019. However, little is known about the risk of transmission between coworkers. The objective of this study was to determine the risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between coworkers in a surgical environment. This was an observational study of 394 health care workers in a surgical environment who were exposed to 2 known SARS-CoV-2–positive coworkers. Standard infection precautions were in place at the time of the exposure. All 394 exposed workers initially underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 using the polymerase chain reaction technique. Of the original group, 387 were tested again with the same technique 1 week later. Of 394 SARS-CoV-2–exposed health care workers initially tested, 1 was positive. No new positive cases were found on repeated testing of 387 participants 1 week later. The risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a health care unit with universal masking and appropriate hand hygiene is low. This finding should provide some reassurance to surgical practices as they reopen.     

Prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 case with rheumatoid arthritis taking iguratimod treated with ciclesonide

We report a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case with rheumatoid arthritis taking iguratimod. The patient who continued iguratimod therapy without dose reduction was treated with ciclesonide had an uneventful clinical course, but prolonged detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was observed after resolution of symptoms. The effects of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and ciclesonide on clinical course and viral shedding remain unknown and warrant further investigation.     

Effectiveness of personal protective equipment in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection among healthcare workers

IntroductionInformation on the effectiveness of personal protective equipment (PPE) for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs), especially among HCWs with frequent contact with patients with SARS-CoV-2, is limited.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study on 49 HCWs who worked in close contact with patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. HCWs had blood samples taken every 2 weeks to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using two different types of assay.ResultsForty-nine participants (31 nurses, 15 doctors, 3 other workers) were enrolled. In total, 112 blood samples are obtained from participants. The median work days in 2 weeks was 9 (interquartile range (IQR): 5–10) days. In a single work day, 30 of the 49 participants (61.5%) had contact with patients with suspected or conformed SARS-CoV-2 at least 8 times, and approximately 60% of participants had more than 10 min of contact with a single patient. The median self-reported compliance to PPE was 90% (IQR: 80–100%). Seven participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibody using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); however, none were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody, so the positive ELISA results were assumed to be false-positive.ConclusionsThe study provides evidence that appropriate PPE is sufficient to prevent infection amongHCWs. It is necessary to establish a system that provides a stable supply of PPE for HCWs to perform their duties.     

Three SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative cases of COVID-19 diagnosed using isothermal amplification methods

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 can be detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and isothermal nucleic acid amplification tests, including loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and nicking endonuclease amplification reaction (NEAR) tests. Although PCR is the most sensitive and specific method and is generally considered to be the gold standard, it is time-consuming and costly. Isothermal nucleic acid amplification tests have lower sensitivity and specificity than PCR, but are less time-consuming and costly. We encountered three cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in which the isothermal amplification test was positive but the PCR test was negative on the day of admission; however, the PCR test was positive the next day. These cases showed that some COVID-19 patients can test negative by PCR but positive using isothermal nucleic acid amplification methods. As PCR tests have the possibility of false-negative results, tests that use isothermal amplification methods which can be performed in a shorter time and at a lower cost than PCR tests, may be able to diagnose patients who have false negative PCR results.     

Immunochromatography and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for COVID-19 diagnosis

IntroductionThe rapid and accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is required to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This study evaluated the utility of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection methods.MethodsWe evaluated two types of antigen detection methods using immunochromatography (Espline) and quantitative chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (Lumipulse). RT-PCR was performed as a standard procedure for COVID-19 diagnosis. Lumipulse and RT-PCR were performed for all 486 nasopharyngeal swabs and 136 saliva samples, and the Espline test was performed for 271 nasopharyngeal swabs and 93 saliva samples.ResultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the Espline test were 10/11 and 260/260 (100%), respectively for the nasopharyngeal swabs and 3/9 and 84/84 (100%), respectively for the saliva samples. High sensitivities for both saliva (8/9) and nasopharyngeal swabs (22/24) were observed in the Lumipulse test. The specificities of the Lumipulse test for nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples were 460/462 (99.6%) and 123/127 (96.9%), respectively.ConclusionThe Espline test is not effective for saliva samples but is useful for simple and rapid COVID-19 tests using nasopharyngeal swabs because it does not require special devices. The Lumipulse test is a powerful high-throughput tool for COVID-19 diagnosis because it has high detection performance for nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples.     

Accuracy of rapid antigen detection test for nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with RT-PCR and viral culture for SARS-CoV-2 detection

IntroductionRapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are convenient tools for detecting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in clinics, and testing using saliva samples could decrease the risk of infection during sample collection. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD for testing of nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with the RT-PCR tests and viral culture for detecting viable virus.MethodsOne hundred seventeen nasopharyngeal swab specimens and 73 saliva samples with positive results on RT-PCR were used. Residual samples were assayed using a commercially available RAD test immediately, and its positivity was determined at various time points during the clinical course. The concordance between 54 nasopharyngeal swab samples and saliva samples that were collected simultaneously was determined. Viral culture was performed on 117 samples and compared with the results of the RAD test.ResultsThe positive rate of RAD test using saliva samples was low throughout the clinical course. Poor concordance was observed between nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples (75.9%, kappa coefficient 0.310). However, a substantially high concordance between the RAD test and viral culture was observed in both nasopharyngeal swab specimens (86.8%, kappa coefficient 0.680) and saliva samples (95.1%, kappa coefficient 0.643).ConclusionsThe sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD test was insufficient, particularly for saliva samples. However, a substantially high concordance with viral culture suggests its potential utility as an auxiliary test for estimating SARS-CoV-2 viability.     

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent C difficile Infection During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience and Recommendations

ObjectiveTo report experience with fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) and provide recommendations for management of rCDI and donor testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective study of patients with rCDI who underwent FMT from May 26, 2020, to September 30, 2020, with stool from well-screened donors with health and infectious screening and a newly implemented strategy for COVID-19 screening with every 2-week bookend testing with stool quarantine. Patients were followed up for development of rCDI and COVID-19.ResultsOf the 57 patients who underwent FMT for rCDI, 29 were tested for COVID-19 via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and 22 via serology. All results were negative, except for 1 positive serology. Donor testing every 2 weeks for COVID-19 via serology and nasopharyngeal swab PCR was negative, except for 2 donors at 1 center who were excluded. Three patients had rCDI after FMT, and 1 underwent repeat FMT. One patient developed respiratory symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 and tested negative via nasopharyngeal PCR. Eleven patients who underwent COVID-19 testing for elective procedures or hospitalizations tested negative. No SARS-CoV-2 transmission was noted.ConclusionsWith appropriate donor screening, FMT can be performed safely for rCDI during the COVID-19 pandemic. Development of a validated stool assay for SARS-CoV-2 will simplify this process further.     

Long-term transition of antibody titers in healthcare workers following the first to fourth doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: Comparison of two automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays

Anti-spike receptor binding domain (S-RBD) antibody against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which best correlates with virus-neutralizing antibody is useful for estimating the period of protection and identifying the timing of additional booster doses. Long-term transition of the S-RBD antibody titer and the antibody responses among healthy individuals remain unclear. In the present study, therefore, we monitored the S-RBD antibody titers of 16 healthcare workers every 4 weeks for 76 weeks after vaccination with a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) following three doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) using two commercial automated immunoassays (Roche and Abbott). Two antibody responses to the vaccine were similar with an up-down change before and after the second (weeks 3), third (weeks 40) and fourth (week 72) vaccinations, but the titer did not fall below the assay's positivity threshold in any individual. The peak level of the geometric mean titer (GMT) in the Roche assay was highest after the third vaccination, and that in Abbott assay was highest after the fourth vaccination but almost equal to that after the third vaccination. Both the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) demonstrated by the Roche and Abbott assays were highest after the third vaccination. Antibody titers determined by the Roche and Abbott assays showed a positive strong correlation (correlation coefficient: 0.70 to 0.99), but the ratio (Roche/Abbott) of antibodies demonstrated by both assays increased 0.46- to 8.26-fold between weeks 3 and 76. These findings will be helpful for clinicians when interpreting results for SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and considering future vaccination strategies.     

Factors affecting the sensitivity of quantitative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen test

IntroductionThe accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) is affected by various factors; however, studies examining the factors affecting the accuracy of quantitative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test (QAT) are limited.MethodsA total of 347 nasopharyngeal samples were collected from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the date of onset was obtained from the electronic medical records. The SARS-CoV-2 antigen level was measured using Lumipulse Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Presto), while NAAT was performed using the Ampdirect 2019-nCoV Detection Kit.ResultsPresto had a sensitivity rate of 95.1% (95% confidence interval: 92.8–97.4) in detecting the SARS-CoV-2 antigen in 347 samples. The number of days from symptom onset to sample collection was negatively correlated with the amount of antigen (r = −0.515) and sensitivity of Presto (r = −0.711). The patients’ age was lower in the Presto-negative samples (median age, 39 years) compared with that in the Presto-positive samples (median age, 53 years; p < 0.01). A significant positive correlation was observed between age (excluding teenagers) and Presto sensitivity (r = 0.764). Meanwhile, no association was found between the mutant strain, sex, and Presto results.ConclusionPresto is useful for the accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 owing to its high sensitivity when the number of days from symptom onset to sample collection is within 12 days. Furthermore, age may affect the results of Presto, and this tool has a relatively low sensitivity in younger patients.     

COVID-19 in Health Care Personnel: Significance of Health Care Role,Contact History,and Symptoms in Those Who Test Positive for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

ObjectiveTo identify significant factors that help predict whether health care personnel (HCP) will test positive for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Patients and MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study among 7015 symptomatic HCP from March 25, 2020, through November 11, 2020. We analyzed the associations between health care role, contact history, symptoms, and a positive nasopharyngeal swab SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test results, using univariate and multivariable modelling.ResultsOf the symptomatic HCP, 624 (8.9%) were positive over the study period. On multivariable analysis, having a health care role other than physician or advanced practice provider, contact with family or community member with known or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and seven individual symptoms (cough, anosmia, ageusia, fever, myalgia, chills, and headache) were significantly associated with higher adjusted odds ratios for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. For each increase in symptom number, the odds of testing positive nearly doubled (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.07, P<.001).ConclusionSymptomatic HCP have higher adjusted odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on three distinct factors: (1) nonphysician/advanced practice provider role, (2) contact with a family or community member with suspected or known COVID-19, and (3) specific symptoms and symptom number. Differences among health care roles, which persisted after controlling for contacts, may reflect the influence of social determinants. Contacts with COVID-19–positive patients and/or HCP were not associated with higher odds of testing positive, supporting current infection control efforts. Targeted symptom and contact questionnaires may streamline symptomatic HCP testing for COVID-19.     

Nerve Compression Injuries After Prolonged Prone Position Ventilation in Patients With SARS-CoV-2: A Case Series

BackgroundProne positioning improves oxygenation in adult respiratory distress syndrome. This procedure has been widely used during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. However, this procedure can also be responsible for nerve damage and plexopathy.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed a series of 7 infectious patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who underwent prone positioning ventilation at the San Raffaele Hospital of Milan, Italy, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.ResultsClinical and neurophysiological data of 7 patients with nerve compression injuries have been reported.ConclusionsHealth care workers should take into consideration the risk factors for prone positioning–related plexopathy and nerve damage, especially in patients with coronavirus disease 2019, to prevent this type of complication.     

SARS-CoV-2 Testing Before International Airline Travel,December 2020 to May 2021

Although there have been several case reports and simulation models of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission associated with air travel, there are limited data to guide testing strategy to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and transmission onboard commercial aircraft. Among 9853 passengers with a negative SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test performed within 72 hours of departure from December 2020 through May 2021, five (0.05%) passengers with active SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified with rapid antigen tests and confirmed with rapid molecular test performed before and after an international flight from the United States to Italy. This translates to a case detection rate of 1 per 1970 travelers during a time of high prevalence of active infection in the United States. A negative molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 within 72 hours of international airline departure results in a low probability of active infection identified on antigen testing during commercial airline flight.     

Curbing the Delta Surge: Clinical Outcomes After Treatment With Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab,Casirivimab-Imdevimab,or Sotrovimab for Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019

ObjectiveTo describe and compare the clinical outcomes of bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.617.2 Delta surge.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 between August 1, 2021, and December 1, 2021. Rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and death were assessed.ResultsAmong 10,775 high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the Delta surge, 287 patients (2.7%) developed severe disease that led to hospitalization, oxygen supplementation, or death within 30 days after treatment. The rates of severe disease were low among patients treated with bamlanivimab-etesevimab (1.2%), casirivimab-imdevimab (2.9%), and sotrovimab (1.6%; P<.01). The higher rate of severe outcomes among patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab may be related to a significantly lower COVID-19 vaccination rate in that cohort. Intensive care unit admission was comparable among patients treated bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab (1.0%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively).ConclusionThis real-world study of a large cohort of high-risk patients shows low rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality after treatment with bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 Delta surge.     

Comparison of clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in pregnant women between the Delta and Omicron variants of concern predominant periods

BackgroundInformation regarding effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant strains on clinical manifestations and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pregnant women is limited.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted using the data from the nationwide COVID-19 registry in Japan. We identified pregnant patients with symptomatic COVID-19 hospitalized during the study period. The Delta and Omicron variants of concern (VOC) predominant periods were defined as August 1 to December 31, 2021 and January 1 to May 31, 2022, respectively. Clinical characteristics were compared between the patients in the Delta and Omicron VOC periods. In addition, logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for developing moderate-to-severe COVID-19.ResultsDuring the study period, 310 symptomatic COVID-19 cases of pregnant women were identified; 111 and 199 patients were hospitalized during the Delta and Omicron VOC periods, respectively. Runny nose and sore throat were more common, and fatigue, dysgeusia, and olfactory dysfunction were less common manifestations observed in the Omicron VOC period. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, onset during the later stage of pregnancy (OR: 2.08 [1.24–3.71]) and onset during the Delta VOC period (OR: 2.25 [1.08–4.90]) were independently associated with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, whereas two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were protective against developing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (OR: 0.34 [0.13–0.84]).ConclusionsClinical manifestations of COVID-19 in pregnant women differed between the Delta and Omicron VOC periods. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was still effective in preventing severe COVID-19 throughout the Delta and Omicron VOC periods.