Viral load may impact the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs in nucleic acid amplification test and quantitative antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 detection

IntroductionCompared to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), there has been insufficient evaluation of the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs (NS) for the detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (QAT).MethodsWe prospectively compared healthcare worker-collected and flocked NS within nine days after symptom onset to paired NPS to detect SARS-CoV-2 in NAAT and QAT on the fully automated Lumipulse system. The agreement between sample types was evaluated, and cycle threshold (Ct) values and antigen levels were used as surrogate viral load measures.ResultsSixty sets of NPS and NS samples were collected from 40 patients with COVID-19. The overall agreements between NAAT and QAT samples were 76.7% and 65.0%, respectively. In NAAT, the Ct value of NS was significantly higher, 5.9, than that of NPS. Thirty-nine (95.1%) NS tested positive in 41 positive-paired NPS with Ct ≤ 30. The negative correlation was observed between antigen levels of NS in QAT and Ct values of NS in NAAT (r = ?0.88). In QAT, the antigen level of NS was significantly lower than that of NPS. Thirty-six (90.0%) NS tested positive in 40 positive-paired NPS with antigen levels >100 pg/mL, which were collected significantly earlier than those with antigen levels ≤100 pg/mL.ConclusionsIn NAAT and QAT, NS had limited performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared to NPS. However, NS may be helpful for patients with COVID-19 with high viral loads or those in the early stages of the illness.     

Analytical sensitivity of six lateral flow antigen test kits for variant strains of SARS-CoV-2

IntroductionThe lateral flow antigen test is a useful tool for rapid diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The analytical sensitivity of six lateral flow antigen test kits was compared.MethodsThe limit of detection (LoD) and time to positive results were evaluated for six lateral flow tests including ImmunoArrow®, ESPLINE® SARS-CoV-2, QuickNavi? COVID19 Ag, ImmunoAce® SARS-CoV-2, Panbio? COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test using the heat-inactivated virus. The LoD of ImmunoArrow® against the Omicron variants was compared with that against the wild-type using recombinant proteins.ResultsImmunoArrow® and ESPLINE® showed the lowest LoD. The time to positive results of all tests except for ESPLINE® was within 200 s in the evaluation at high dose of antigens (2.5 × 10⁵ TCID₅₀/mL) and 500 s in the evaluation at low dose of antigens (2.5 × 10⁴ TCID₅₀/mL). The LoD of ImmunoArrow® against the Omicron variants was the same concentration against the wild-type antigen.ConclusionsImmunoArrow® detected SARS-CoV-2 antigens including the Omicron variants with good sensitivity among the six lateral flow antigen tests. These finding support that it can support the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 with the good sensitivity.     

Room-temperature-storable PCR mixes for SARS-CoV-2 detection

ObjectivesA novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019, causing an outbreak of pneumonia [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] globally. Although the use of ready-made reaction mixes can enable more rapid PCR-based diagnosis of COVID-19, the need to transport and store these mixes at low temperatures presents challenges to already overburdened logistics networks.MethodsHere, we present an optimized freeze-drying procedure that allows SARS-CoV-2 PCR mixes to be transported and stored at ambient temperatures, without loss of activity. Additive-supplemented PCR mixes were freeze-dried. The residual moisture of the freeze-dried PCR mixes was measured by Karl-Fischer titration.ResultsWe found that the freeze-dried PCR mixes with ~1.2% residual moisture are optimal for storage, transport, and reconstitution. The sensitivity, specificity, and repeatability of the freeze-dried reagents were similar to those of freshly prepared, wet reagents. The freeze-dried mixes retained activity at room temperature (18 ~ 25 °C) for 28 days, and for 14 and 10 days when stored at 37 °C and 56 °C, respectively.ConclusionThe uptake of this approach will ease logistical challenges faced by transport networks and make more cold storage space available at diagnosis and hospital laboratories.     

Healthy neonate born to a SARS-CoV-2 infected woman: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUNDSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a newly discovered coronavirus that has generated a worldwide outbreak of infections. Many people with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have developed severe illness, and a significant number have died. However, little is known regarding infection by the novel virus in pregnant women. We herein present a case of COVID-19 confirmed in a woman delivering a neonate who was negative for SARS-CoV-2 and related it to a review of the literature on pregnant women and human coronavirus infections.CASE SUMMARYThe patient was a 36-year-old pregnant woman in her third trimester who had developed progressive clinical symptoms when she was confirmed as infected with SARS-CoV-2. Given the potential risks for both the pregnant woman and the fetus, an emergency cesarean section was performed, and the baby and his mother were separately quarantined and cared for. As a result, the baby currently shows no signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection (his lower respiratory tract samples were negative for the virus), while the mother completely recovered from COVID-19.CONCLUSIONAlthough we presented a single case, the successful result is of great significance for pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection and with respect to fully understanding novel coronavirus pneumonia.     

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 in Japan: An open-label,randomized, controlled trial

BackgroundConvalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite its use for treating several viral infections, we lack comprehensive data on its efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy with high neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 in high-risk patients within five days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted average change in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs from days 0–5.ResultsBetween February 24, 2021, and November 30, 2021, 25 patients were randomly assigned to either convalescent plasma (n = 14) or standard of care (n = 11) groups. Four patients discontinued their allocated convalescent plasma, and 21 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The median interval between the symptom onset and plasma administration was 4.5 days (interquartile range, 3–5 days). The primary outcome of the time-weighted average change in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs did not significantly differ between days 0–5 (1.2 log₁₀ copies/mL in the convalescent plasma vs. 1.2 log₁₀ copies/mL in the standard of care (effect estimate, 0.0 [95% confidence interval, −0.8–0.7]; P = 0.94)). No deaths were observed in either group.ConclusionsThe early administration of convalescent plasma with high neutralizing activity did not contribute to a decrease in the viral load within five days compared with the standard of care alone.     

Immunochromatographic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva

We evaluated the rapid immunochromatographic test for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen detection using 16 saliva specimens collected from 6 COVID-19 hospitalized patients, and detected N-antigen in 4 of 7 RT-PCR positive specimens. This POCT detected SARS-CoV-2 antigen in saliva and would be useful for COVID-19 diagnosis.     

Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel,a rapid multiplex PCR method for the diagnosis of COVID-19

IntroductionRapid, simple, and accurate methods are required to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), a rapid multiplex PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection.MethodsNasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) that were obtained from patients with COVID-19 who were diagnosed at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine were used in this study. When the NPS samples were found to be negative for SARS-CoV-2 after treatment, they were used as negative samples. We evaluated the performance of the QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 comparing SARS-CoV-2 detection with the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Japan-recommended real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method (NIID-RT-PCR).ResultsIn total, 45 NPS samples were analyzed. The proportion of overall agreement between QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and NIID-RT-PCR on 45 samples was 91.0% with a sensitivity of 84.0% (21/25), specificity at 100% (20/20), negative predictive value at 83.3% (20/24), and positive predictive value at 100% (21/21). There were no patients with co-infections with pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2.ConclusionsQIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 showed a high agreement in comparison with the NIID-RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 also provided a rapid and accurate diagnosis for COVID-19, even when the concurrent detection of other respiratory pathogens was desired, and therefore, has the potential to direct appropriate therapy and infection control precautions.     

Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test

IntroductionHighly sensitive reagents for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed for accurate and rapid diagnosis till date. In this study, we aim to clarify the frequency of false-positive reactions and reveal their details in SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test using an automated laboratory device.MethodsNasopharyngeal swab samples (n = 4992) and saliva samples (n = 5430) were collected. We measured their SARS-CoV-2 antigen using Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag and performed a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using the Ampdirect™ 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detection Kit as needed. The results obtained from each detection test were compared accordingly.ResultsThere were 304 nasopharyngeal samples and 114 saliva samples were positive in the Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag test. All positive nasopharyngeal samples in the antigen test were also positive for NAAT. In contrast, only three (2.6%) of all the positive saliva samples in the antigen test were negative for NAAT. One showed no linearity with a dilute solution in the dilution test. Additionally, the quantitative antigen levels of all the three samples did not decrease after reaction with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody.ConclusionsThe judgment difference between the quantitative antigen test and NAAT seemed to be caused by non-specific reactions in the antigen test. Although the high positive and negative predictive value of this quantitative antigen test could be confirmed, we should consider the possibility of false-positives caused by non-specific reactions and understand the characteristics of antigen testing. We recommend that repeating centrifugation before measurement, especially in saliva samples, should be performed appropriately.