Pooled nasopharyngeal swab collection in a single vial for the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 infection: An effective cost saving method

BackgroundPool testing is one of the strategy to expedite testing capacities while simultaneously conserving various diagnostic kits, reagents and consumables and time. In the present study, we investigated potential role of combined specimen collection technique for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection where five nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from different individuals and pooled together in a single viral transport medium (VTM).Material and methodsThis pilot study was conducted on different cohorts of Delhi state. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each enrolled individual. One swab was put into VTM vial to be further used for individual swab testing (ID). The other swab was put into a fresh VTM for pool swab collection. Each pool comprised five swabs collected from five different patients in one VTM vial. Both IDs and pools were tested in parallel for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using real time PCR.ResultsA total of 46 pools were collected from 230 enrolled individuals.Among 230 ID tested, 60 were found to be positive for both E and RdRp gene. Among 46 pools, 25 pools included all negatives samples and remaining 21 pools included one or more positives. Comparing ID with pool results, overall concordance was seen in 42 pools (91.3%). Four pools showed false positive results as all included samples on ID testing were found to be negative. Considering ID results as reference, swab pool showed 100% sensitivity, 84% specificity, 84% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value.ConclusionThe pooling of swab strategy could be beneficial only among asymptomatic in low prevalence areas.     

Comparison of DRY and WET vaginal swabs with cervical specimens in Roche Cobas 4800 HPV and Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV tests

BackgroundSelf-collected vaginal swab samples have been proposed as an alternative specimen collection method for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection.ObjectivesTwo vaginal swabs (a cone-shaped flocked swab (DRY) and a L-shape FLOQSwab with 2 mL eNAT transport medium (WET)) were compared to standard cervical samples for HPV DNA testing. Additionally, they were also compared by using Roche Cobas 4800 HPV (Roche_HPV) and Abbott Real-time High Risk HPV (Abbott_HPV) tests.Study designNinety-six women were prospectively enrolled from the National Cancer Center in Korea between June and August 2015. WET and DRY vaginal swabs and cervical specimens were collected. Roche_HPV and Abbott_HPV tests were performed. The Roche_HPV test on cervical specimens was used as reference.ResultsThe observed agreements (kappa) of Roche_HPV and Abbott_HPV between WET and DRY swabs were 89.6% (0.790, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.667–0.913) and 91.7% (0.833, 95%CI: 0.723–0.943), respectively. No statistical difference was observed between WET and DRY swabs (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). For HPV16/18, the sensitivity/specificity of Roche_HPV on the DRY and WET samples presented 93.8%/96.3% and 87.5%/97.5%, respectively. For other High Risk HPV (hrHPV), the sensitivity/specificity of Roche_HPV on the DRY and WET swabs presented 91.9%/91.5% and 97.3%/98.3, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity of the Abbott_HPV on the DRY and WET swabs were 93.8%/98.8%, 87.5%/98.8% for HPV16/18, and 91.9%/93.2%, 100.0%/93.2% for other hrHPV, respectively.ConclusionsHPV tests performed similarly when using vaginal DRY and WET swab samples. Using DRY and WET swabs to collect vaginal specimens could be an alternative to collecting cervical samples for HPV DNA testing.     

Saliva sample as a non-invasive specimen for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesAmid the increasing number of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, there is a need for a quick and easy method to obtain a non-invasive sample for the detection of this novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to investigate the potential use of saliva samples as a non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19.MethodsFrom 27 March to 4 April 2020, we prospectively collected saliva samples and a standard nasopharyngeal and throat swab in persons seeking care at an acute respiratory infection clinic in a university hospital during the outbreak of COVID-19. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed, and the results of the two specimens were compared.ResultsTwo-hundred pairs of samples were collected. Sixty-nine (34.5%) individuals were male, and the median (interquartile) age was 36 (28–48) years. Using nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR as the reference standard, the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosed by nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR was 9.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the saliva sample RT-PCR were 84.2% (95% CI 60.4%–96.6%), and 98.9% (95% CI 96.1%–99.9%), respectively. An analysis of the agreement between the two specimens demonstrated 97.5% observed agreement (κ coefficient 0.851, 95% CI 0.723–0.979; p < 0.001).ConclusionsSaliva might be an alternative specimen for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The collection is non-invasive, and non-aerosol generating. This method could facilitate the diagnosis of the disease, given the simplicity of specimen collection and good diagnostic performance.     

Diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification coupled to nanopore sequencing (LamPORE) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection at scale in symptomatic and asymptomatic populations

ObjectivesRapid, high throughput diagnostics are a valuable tool, allowing the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in populations so as to identify and isolate people with asymptomatic and symptomatic infections. Reagent shortages and restricted access to high throughput testing solutions have limited the effectiveness of conventional assays such as quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR), particularly throughout the first months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We investigated the use of LamPORE, where loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is coupled to nanopore sequencing technology, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic populations.MethodsIn an asymptomatic prospective cohort, for 3 weeks in September 2020, health-care workers across four sites (Birmingham, Southampton, Basingstoke and Manchester) self-swabbed with nasopharyngeal swabs weekly and supplied a saliva specimen daily. These samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using the Oxford Nanopore LamPORE system and a reference RT-qPCR assay on extracted sample RNA. A second retrospective cohort of 848 patients with influenza-like illness from March 2020 to June 2020 were similarly tested from nasopharyngeal swabs.ResultsIn the asymptomatic cohort a total of 1200 participants supplied 23 427 samples (3966 swab, 19 461 saliva) over a 3-week period. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 detection using LamPORE was 0.95%. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of LamPORE was >99.5% (decreasing to approximately 98% when clustered estimation was used) in both swab and saliva asymptomatic samples when compared with the reference RT-qPCR test. In the retrospective symptomatic cohort, the incidence was 13.4% and the sensitivity and specificity were 100%.ConclusionsLamPORE is a highly accurate methodology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in both symptomatic and asymptomatic population settings and can be used as an alternative to RT-qPCR.     

Characteristics of 1573 healthcare workers who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Milan,Lombardy, Italy

Objectives: The management of healthcare workers (HCWs) exposed to confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a matter of debate. We aimed to assess in this group the attack rate of asymptomatic carriers and the symptoms most frequently associated with infection.MethodsOccupational and clinical characteristics of HCWs who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a university hospital from 24 February 2020 to 31 March 2020 were collected. For those who tested positive and for those who tested positive but who were asymptomatic, we checked the laboratory and clinical data as of 22 May to calculate the time necessary for HCWs to then test negative and to verify whether symptoms developed thereafter. Frequencies of positive tests were compared according to selected variables using multivariable logistic regression models.ResultsThere were 139 positive tests (8.8%) among 1573 HCWs (95% confidence interval, 7.5–10.3), with a marked difference between symptomatic (122/503, 24.2%) and asymptomatic (17/1070, 1.6%) workers (p < 0.001). Physicians were the group with the highest frequency of positive tests (61/582, 10.5%), whereas clerical workers and technicians had the lowest frequency (5/137, 3.6%). The likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 increased with the number of reported symptoms; the strongest predictors of test positivity were taste and smell alterations (odds ratio = 76.9) and fever (odds ratio = 9.12). The median time from first positive test to a negative test was 27 days (95% confidence interval, 24–30).ConclusionsHCWs can be infected with SARS-CoV-2 without displaying any symptoms. Among symptomatic HCWs, the key symptoms to guide diagnosis are taste and smell alterations and fever. A median of almost 4 weeks is necessary before nasopharyngeal swab test results are negative.     

Norovirus in feces and nasopharyngeal swab of children with and without acute gastroenteritis symptoms: First report of GI.5 in Brazil and GI.3 in nasopharyngeal swab

BackgroundNoroviruses (NoVs) are an important cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE), worldwide.ObjectivesTo evaluate the frequency, viral load and molecular profile of NoV in fecal and nasopharyngeal swab samples from hospitalized children, and to determine children’s secretor status.Study designFrom May 2014 to May 2015, 219 children were included in the study, 96 with gastroenteric symptoms and 123 without gastroenteric symptoms. All fecal and nasopharyngeal swab samples were screened by TaqMan RT-qPCR duplex (GI/GII NoV) and quality samples were characterized by genomic sequencing.ResultsNorovirus positivity rate in feces was 15.4% in asymptomatic and 18.8% in the symptomatic group. The median viral loads in feces were 2.69 × 10⁸ GC/g and 4.32 × 10⁷ GC/g from children with or without AGE symptoms, respectively. In nasopharyngeal swab samples, the NoV positivity was 11.4% in symptomatic children, with a median viral load of 2.20 × 10⁷ GC/mL and 6.5% in asymptomatic children, with an average viral load of 1.73 × 10⁶ GC/mL. In only two cases NoV was detected in both samples. A considerable genomic variability was observed in feces, with six genotypes being detected, as follows: GII.4, GII.6, GI.3 and GII.3, GI.2 and GI.5. Two GI.3 was detected in nasopharyngeal swab.ConclusionsOur data reveal considerable NoV frequencies in both nasopharyngeal and fecal samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic children. Higher viral loads were detected in samples from AGE symptomatic children, when compared to asymptomatic children. High genomic variability was observed, with this being the first report of GI.5 NoV in Brazil and of GI.3 in nasopharyngeal swab samples.     

Evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test device) for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients

ObjectivesThere is limited information on the performance of rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2-infected asymptomatic individuals. In this field study, we evaluated the Panbio? COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott Diagnostics, Jena, Germany) for this purpose.MethodsA total of 634 individuals (355 female; median age, 37 years; range, 9–87) were enrolled. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from household (n = 338) and non-household contacts (n = 296) of COVID-19 cases. RAD testing was carried out at the point of care. The RT-PCR test used was the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA).ResultsHousehold contacts were tested at a median of 2 days (range, 1–7) after diagnosis of the index case, whereas non-household contacts (n = 296) were tested at a median of 6 days (range, 1–7) after exposure. In total, 79 individuals (12.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR, of whom 38 (48.1%) yielded positive RAD results. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RAD test was 48.1% (95% CI 37.4–58.9) and 100% (95% CI 99.3–100), respectively. Sensitivity was higher in household (50.8%; 95% CI 38.9–62.5) than in non-household (35.7%; 95% CI 16.3–61.2%) contacts. Individuals testing positive by RAD test were more likely (p < 0.001) to become symptomatic than their negative counterparts.DiscussionThe Panbio test displays low sensitivity in asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients, particularly in non-household contacts. Nonetheless, establishing the optimal timing for upper respiratory tract collection in this group seems imperative to pinpoint test sensitivity.     

Vaccine effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 in a socially vulnerable community in Rio de Janeiro,Brazil: a test-negative design study

ObjectivesTo estimate vaccine effectiveness after the first and second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against symptomatic COVID-19 and infection in a socially vulnerable community in Brazil when Gamma and Delta were the predominant variants circulating.MethodsWe conducted a test-negative study in the community Complexo da Maré, the largest group of slums (n = 16) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from January 17, 2021 to November 27, 2021. We selected RT-qPCR positive and negative tests from a broad community testing program. The primary outcome was symptomatic COVID-19 (positive RT-qPCR test with at least one symptom) and the secondary outcome was infection (any positive RT-qPCR test). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 1 – OR, which was obtained from adjusted logistic regression models.ResultsWe included 10 077 RT-qPCR tests (6,394, 64% from symptomatic and 3,683, 36% from asymptomatic individuals). The mean age was 40 (SD: 14) years, and the median time between vaccination and RT-qPCR testing among vaccinated was 41 (25–75 percentile: 21–62) days for the first dose and 36 (25–75 percentile: 17–59) days for the second dose. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 31.6% (95% CI, 12.0–46.8) 21 days after the first dose and 65.1% (95% CI, 40.9–79.4) 14 days after the second dose. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection was 31.0% (95% CI, 12.7–45.5) 21 days after the first dose and 59.0% (95% CI, 33.1–74.8) 14 days after the second dose.DiscussionChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was effective in reducing symptomatic COVID-19 in a socially vulnerable community in Brazil when Gamma and Delta were the predominant variants circulating.     

Viable SARS-CoV-2 in various specimens from COVID-19 patients

ObjectivesThe aim was to determine whether various clinical specimens obtained from COVID-19 patients contain the infectious virus.MethodsTo demonstrate whether various clinical specimens contain the viable virus, we collected naso/oropharyngeal swabs and saliva, urine and stool samples from five COVID-19 patients and performed a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to assess viral load. Specimens positive with qPCR were subjected to virus isolation in Vero cells. We also used urine and stool samples to intranasally inoculate ferrets and evaluated the virus titres in nasal washes on 2, 4, 6 and 8 days post infection.ResultsSARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in all naso/oropharyngeal swabs and saliva, urine and stool samples collected between days 8 and 30 of the clinical course. Notably, viral loads in urine, saliva and stool samples were almost equal to or higher than those in naso/oropharyngeal swabs (urine 1.08 ± 0.16–2.09 ± 0.85 log₁₀ copies/mL, saliva 1.07 ± 0.34–1.65 ± 0.46 log₁₀ copies/mL, stool 1.17 ± 0.32 log₁₀ copies/mL, naso/oropharyngeal swabs 1.18 ± 0.12–1.34 ± 0.30 log₁₀ copies/mL). Further, viable SARS-CoV-2 was isolated from naso/oropharyngeal swabs and saliva of COVID-19 patients, as well as nasal washes of ferrets inoculated with patient urine or stool.DiscussionViable SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in saliva, urine and stool samples from COVID-19 patients up to days 11–15 of the clinical course. This result suggests that viable SARS-CoV-2 can be secreted in various clinical samples and respiratory specimens.     

Rectal swabs are a reliable method of assessing the colonic microbiome

BackgroundAdvances in genome sequencing have enabled detailed microbiome analysis; however, the ideal specimen type for sequencing is yet to be determined. Rectal swabs may offer a rapid and convenient modality for colonic microbiome analysis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of rectal swabs compared to faecal specimens.Methods and resultsTwenty health professionals participated in this study and provided a faecal specimen, a self-collected rectal swab and a rectal swab taken by a clinician. DNA was extracted and 16S rRNA gene sequencing was carried out for microbiome analysis.Alpha diversity was higher in swabs compared to faecal specimens; however, the difference was only significant when comparing clinician-obtained swabs to faeces.Analysis of beta diversity consistently showed that few taxa were affected by sample type. We found sample type accounted for only 6.8% of community variation (R2 = 0.067, p < 0.001, permanova). Notably, there were only six genera identified in clinician-obtained swabs that were not also found in the self-taken swabs.ConclusionsBoth self-collected and clinician obtained rectal swabs are a reliable method of analysing the colonic microbiome. Obtaining specimens for microbiome analysis is often time-critical due to therapy, such as antibiotics, influencing the microbiome. Rectal swabs are shown to be a valid and convenient modality for microbiome analysis.     

Swabbing for respiratory viral infections in older patients: a comparison of rayon and nylon flocked swabs

The purpose of this study was to compare the sampling efficacy of rayon swabs and nylon flocked swabs, and of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal specimens for the detection of respiratory viruses in elderly patients. Samples were obtained from patients 60 years of age or above who were newly admitted to Sorlandet Hospital Arendal, Norway. The patients were interviewed for current symptoms of a respiratory tract infection. Using rayon swabs and nylon flocked swabs, comparable sets of mucosal samples were harvested from the nasopharynx and the oropharynx. The samples were analysed using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods. A total of 223 patients (mean age 74.9 years, standard deviation [SD] 9.0 years) were swabbed and a virus was recovered from 11% of the symptomatic patients. Regardless of the sampling site, a calculated 4.8 times higher viral load (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–17, p = 0.017) was obtained using the nylon flocked swabs as compared to the rayon swabs. Also, regardless of the type of swab, a calculated 19 times higher viral load was found in the samples from the nasopharynx as compared to the oropharynx (95% CI 5.4–67.4, p < 0.001). When swabbing for respiratory viruses in elderly patients, nasopharyngeal rather than oropharyngeal samples should be obtained. Nylon flocked swabs appear to be more efficient than rayon swabs.     

Prevalence and impact factors of recurrent positive SARS-CoV-2 detection in 599 hospitalized COVID-19 patients

ObjectivesRepeat-positive tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were common. We aimed to investigate the rate and risk factors of recurrent positive detection of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19.MethodsOropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 3513) were collected to detect SARS-CoV-2 during the hospitalization. We analysed the recurrent positive rate after consecutive negative results and its relationship to demographic characteristics.ResultsAmong 599 enrolled individuals with COVID-19, the median time for viral RNA shedding was 24 days (interquartile range 19–33 days). The positive rates of RT-PCR were 35.9% (215/599), 17.0% (65/383) and 12.4% (23/185) after one, two and three consecutive negative RT-PCR test results, respectively. Medians of Ct values of initial positive test, rebound positive test after two consecutive negative results, and rebound positive after three consecutive negative results were 28.8, 32.8 and 36.1, respectively. Compared with male patients, females had a significantly higher rate of recurrent positive RT-PCR after three consecutive negative results (18.2%, 18/99, versus 5.8%, 5/86; p 0.013). Older individuals (≥55 years) had a significantly higher rate of recurrent positive RT-PCR after one negative result (42.3%, 165/390, versus 23.9%, 50/209; p < 0.001). Nasopharyngeal swab tests produced a higher positive rate than oropharyngeal swab tests (37.3%, 152/408, versus 35.8%, 1111/3105).ConclusionOur study revealed the prevalence and dynamic characteristics of recurrent positive RT-PCR to SARS-CoV-2. We showed that around 17.0% (65/383) of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after two consecutive negative results. Patients with a rebound positive RT-PCR test had a low viral load. Older age and being female were risk factors for recurrent positive results.     

Nasopharyngeal versus oropharyngeal sampling for isolation of potential respiratory pathogens in adults

The optimal methodology for the identification of colonization by potential respiratory pathogens (PRP) in adults is not well established. The objectives of the present study were to compare the sensitivities of sampling the nasopharynx and the oropharynx for identification of PRP colonization and to compare the sensitivities of samples from the nasopharynx by swab and by washing for the same purpose. The study included 500 participants with a mean age of 65.1 +/- 17.8 years. Of these, 300 patients were hospitalized for acute febrile lower respiratory tract infection and 200 were controls. Each participant was sampled by oropharyngeal swab (OPS), nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and nasopharyngeal washing (NPW). The samples were tested by conventional bacteriological methods to identify Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. OPS detected colonization by S. pneumoniae in 30% of the subjects compared with 89% by NPS and NPW (P < 0.000001). The corresponding rates for H. influenzae were 49% and 64%, respectively (no significant difference [NS]), and for M. catarrhalis were 72% and 46%, respectively (P < 0.0004). NPS identified 61% of the cases of colonization with S. pneumoniae, compared with 76% by NPW (NS). The corresponding rates for H. influenzae were 31% and 56%, respectively (P < 0.04), and for M. catarrhalis were 39% and 33%, respectively (NS). We conclude that the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal sampling for identification of PRP colonization in adults are different for each of the three bacteria in this category. The combined results of sampling from both sites are necessary to obtain a true picture of the rate of colonization. NPW is superior to NPS.     

Evaluation of rectal swab use for the determination of enteric pathogens: a prospective study of diarrhoea in adults

ObjectivesA stool sample is the sample of choice for microbiological testing of enteric pathogens causing diarrhoea, but a rectal swab can be a more practical alternative. A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of flocked rectal swab specimens using the syndromic molecular approach to determine the aetiology of diarrhoea in adults.MethodsWe compared the performance of rectal swabs with stool samples as the reference standard in determining viral, bacterial and protozoal pathogens using real-time multiplex PCR as well as standard stool culture. Paired samples of stool and rectal swab specimens were collected from 304 adult patients with diarrhoea, presented at the Department of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, between June 2016 and August 2017.ResultsOverall sensitivity of rectal swab samples in the syndromic molecular approach was 83.2% (95% CI 77.2%–88.1%). Pathogen group-specific analysis of rectal swabs showed sensitivity of 65.6% (95% CI 52.7%–77.1%) for viruses and 57.1% (95% CI 28.9%–82.3%) for parasites. For bacteria, sensitivity was 86.5% (95% CI 79.5%–91.8%) when PCR was performed and 61.4% (95% CI 52.4%–69.9%) when culture for bacteria was performed. Mean threshold cycle (Ct) values for most pathogens were higher in rectal swab specimens than in stool specimens.ConclusionsOur results indicate that rectal swabs can be used in the diagnosis of diarrhoea in adults when stool specimens are not available or when rapid aetiological determination is needed. However, rectal swabs should be analysed using a molecular approach. The mean Ct value for most pathogens is higher in rectal swab specimens than in stool specimens.     

Asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 carriage and sero-positivity in high risk contacts of COVID-19 cases’

PurposeIdentifying asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 carriage is one of the crucial factors in controlling the COVID 19 pandemic. The relationship between the asymptomatic viral carriage and the rate of seroconversion needs better understanding. The present study was conducted to identify the asymptomatic COVID-19 infection and seropositivity in high-risk contacts in the southern district of Delhi, India.MethodsFollowing the screening of 6961 subjects, a total of 407 asymptomatic high-risk subjects were selected. Demographic data, socioeconomic status, and history of COVID-19 related symptoms in the last 4 months were recorded. Blood samples and Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs were collected for the detection of SARS-COV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-COV-2 antibodies.Results55 asymptomatic high-risk subjects (13.5%) tested positive for SARS-COV-2 infection and among them, 70.9% remained asymptomatic throughout their course of infection. The seropositivity among the subjects was 28.9% (n ?= ?118) and was found significantly higher among lower-middle socioeconomic strata (p ?= ?0.01). The antibody levels were significantly higher (p ?= ?0.033) in individuals with a previous history of COVID-19 like symptoms as compared to the subjects, who had no such history. Asymptomatic healthcare workers showed a significantly increased rate of SARS-COV-2 infection (p ?= ?0.004) and seropositivity (p ?= ?0.005) as compared to the non-healthcare workers. Subjects, who were exposed to infection at their workplace (non-hospital setting) had the least RT-PCR positivity rate (p ?= ?0.03).ConclusionsA large proportion of SARS-COV-2 infection remains completely asymptomatic. The rate of asymptomatic carriage and seropositivity is significantly higher in healthcare workers as compared to the general population. The level of SARS-COV-2 antibodies is directly related to the appearance of symptoms. These observations may contribute to redefining COVID 19 screening, infection control, and professional health practice strategies.     

Detection of Babesia divergens using molecular methods in anemic patients in Shandong Province, China

The aim of this study was to analyze the presence of 62 kDa proteinase and anti-62 kDa proteinase antibody in clinical samples of symptomatic and asymptomatic infected women. Proteinase was detected in all the swabs vaginal of infected women. Significantly, amounts of antigen (mean optical density (OD) values) were detected in swabs vaginal of symptomatic as compared to asymptomatic women. This protein was not detected in the group of patients with Trichomonas vaginalis-culture-negative results and in the groups of samples infected with other agents. Antibody to 62 kDa was detected in the swabs vaginal the only 66.6% of the symptomatic and 55.5% of the asymptomatic infected women. Antibody to 62 kDa was also detected in 7/30 of the swabs vaginal from uninfected women. No significant difference was observed in mean OD values of vaginal swabs of T. vaginalis-infected symptomatic as compared to asymptomatic women. The presence of proteinase in 100% of T. vaginalis-infected women suggested that 62 kDa proteinase could be a virulence factor.     

Real-life evaluation of a rapid antigen test (DPP SARS-CoV-2 Antigen) for COVID-19 diagnosis of primary healthcare patients,in the context of the Omicron-dominant wave in Brazil

ObjectivesWe aimed to investigate the real-life performance of the rapid antigen test in the context of a primary healthcare setting, including symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals that sought diagnosis during an Omicron infection wave.MethodsWe prospectively accessed the performance of the DPP SARS-CoV-2 Antigen test in the context of an Omicron-dominant real-life setting. We evaluated 347 unselected individuals (all-comers) from a public testing centre in Brazil, performing the rapid antigen test diagnosis at point-of-care with fresh samples. The combinatory result from two distinct real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) methods was employed as a reference and 13 samples with discordant PCR results were excluded.ResultsThe assessment of the rapid test in 67 PCR-positive and 265 negative samples revealed an overall sensitivity of 80.5% (CI 95% = 69.1%–89.2%), specificity of 99.2% (CI 95% = 97.3%–99.1%) and positive/negative predictive values higher than 95%. However, we observed that the sensitivity was dependent on the viral load (sensitivity in Ct < 31 = 93.7%, CI = 82.8%–98.7%; Ct > 31 = 47.4%, CI = 24.4%–71.1%). The positive samples evaluated in the study were Omicron (BA.1/BA.1.1) by whole-genome sequencing (n = 40) and multiplex RT-qPCR (n = 17).ConclusionsAltogether, the data obtained from a real-life prospective cohort supports that the rapid antigen test sensitivity for Omicron remains high and underscores the reliability of the test for COVID-19 diagnosis in settings with high disease prevalence and limited PCR testing capability.     

Lack of sensitivity of an IVD/CE-labelled kit targeting the S gene for detection of SARS-CoV-2

ObjectivesNew molecular tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being rapidly launched in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 S gene RT-PCR Kit on the BD Max™ system and to compare results with those obtained with the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test on the cobas® 6800 system.MethodsFor testing the analytical performance, reference material was used. Clinical samples (n = 101) obtained from individuals with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 were studied. Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected by using either ESwab™ or UTM™ collection systems.ResultsWhen the analytical performance was evaluated, the sample containing the lowest SARS-CoV-2 concentration tested negative with the VIASURE test whereas results obtained with the cobas® test were found to be concordant with the results expected. Six out of the 101 clinical samples (5.9%) showed an inhibition with the VIASURE test. When analysing the remaining 95 clinical samples, 27 were found to be negative with both assays. Of 68 samples that were positive with the cobas® test, the VIASURE test missed 21 (30.9 %) samples. All of those 21 samples had shown Ct values ≥ 31 with the cobas® 6800 system. None of the samples tested positive with the VIASURE test and negative with the cobas® test.ConclusionsThe VIASURE test was impaired by a lack of sensitivity and a relatively high number of invalid results. When using the VIASURE test for routine testing, a significant number of COVID-19-positive samples would have been missed.     

Different performance of three point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection devices in symptomatic patients and close asymptomatic contacts: a real-life study

ObjectivesPCR on nasopharyngeal exudates, the cornerstone of the detection of SARS-CoV-2, is time-consuming and commonly unavailable at primary health care centres. Detection of viral nucleocapsid antigens using lateral flow point-of-care tests is helpful for the early triage of patients who attend health care facilities.MethodsThis was a prospective study carried out in clinically suspected cases and close asymptomatic contacts who attended a primary care centre (Madrid, Spain) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Patients were divided into three 300-patient cohorts (n = 200 symptomatic cases and n = 100 close asymptomatic contacts per cohort). Three antigen detection tests (SGTI-Flex COVID-19 Ag, Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, and GSD NovaGen SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test) were used and compared. Paired nasopharyngeal exudates were obtained, one swab for PCR and the other for antigen detection. Each antigen detection test was evaluated on one cohort.ResultsAll tests showed invariably 100% specificity. Sensitivity was 68.9% (95% CI: 55.7–80; SGTI-Flex), 71.1% (95% CI: 55.6–83.6; Panbio), and 84.6% (95% CI: 72–93.1; NovaGen) in clinically suspected patients and 84.6% (95% CI: 54.5–98.1), 33.3% (95% CI: 11.8–61.6), and 55.6% (95% CI: 30.7–78.4) in close asymptomatic contacts, respectively. Sensitivity was systematically higher in samples yielding positive PCR results with Ct ≤ 20.DiscussionWe found considerable test-to-test antigen detection variations among patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and close asymptomatic contacts. Negative antigen results, regardless of the test used, should be confirmed by PCR.