Factors associated with asymptomatic infection in health-care workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Wuhan,China: a multicentre retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesTo describe the fraction of asymptomatic health-care workers (HCWs) in two designated hospitals for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment in Wuhan and explore the factors associated with asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.MethodsAll HCWs in Wuhan Union Hospital and Wuhan Red Cross Hospital with either positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid or positive antibody test before 18 April 2020 were included. Exposure, epidemiological and demographic information were retrospectively collected by a structured questionnaire. Medical records were also reviewed for clinical characteristics and CT images of HCWs.ResultsAs of 18 April 2020, a total of 424 HCWs were identified. Among them, 276 (65.1%) were symptomatic and 148 (34.9%) were asymptomatic. Fifty-five (19.9%) families of the symptomatic HCWs and 16 (10.8%) families of the asymptomatic HCWs were infected with SARS-CoV-2. HCWs with infected family members tended to be symptomatic (OR 2.053, 95% CI 1.130–3.730; p 0.018). Multivariable logistic regression analysis exhibited that performing tracheal intubation or extubation (OR 4.057, 95% CI 1.183–13.909; p 0.026) was associated with an increased likelihood of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas consistent use of N95 respirators (OR 0.369, 95% CI 0.201–0.680; p 0.001) and eye protection (OR 0.217, 95% CI 0.116–0.404; p < 0.001) were associated with an increased likelihood of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.ConclusionsAsymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs comprised a considerable proportion of HCW infections during the pandemic of COVID-19. Those who performed tracheal intubation or extubation were most likely to develop related symptoms, whereas those taking aggressive measures, including consistent use of N95 masks and eye protection, tended to be asymptomatic cases.     

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.     

Clinical characteristics of non-critically ill patients with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in a Fangcang Hospital

ObjectivesTo describe the clinical characteristics of patients in a Fangcang Hospital.MethodsNon-critically ill individuals with positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests admitted between 7 February and 12 February 2020 to Dongxihu Fangcang Hospital, which was promptly constructed because of the rapid, exponential increase in COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, were included; clinical course through to 22 February was recorded.ResultsA total of 1012 non-critically ill individuals with positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were included in the study. Thirty (of 1012, 3.0%) individuals were asymptomatic on admission. During hospitalization, 16 of 30 (53.3%) asymptomatic individuals developed different symptoms. Fourteen of 1012 patients (1.4%) remained asymptomatic from exposure to the end of follow up, with a median duration of 24 days (interquartile range 22–27). Fever (761 of 1012, 75.2%) and cough (531 of 1012, 52.4%) were the most common symptoms. Small patchy opacities (355 of 917, 38.7%) and ground-glass opacities (508 of 917, 55.4%) were common imaging manifestations in chest CT scans. One hundred patients (9.9%) were transferred to designated hospitals due to aggravation of illness. Diarrhoea emerged in 152 of 1012 patients (15.0%). Male, older age, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chills, dyspnoea, So₂ value of ≤93%, white blood cell counts of >10 × 10⁹/L and large consolidated opacities on CT images were all risk factors for aggravation of illness.ConclusionsNon-critically ill individuals had different clinical characteristics from critically ill individuals. Asymptomatic infections only accounted for a small proportion of COVID-19. Although with a low incidence, diarrhoea was observed in patients with COVID-19, indicating the possibility of faecal–oral transmission.     

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.     

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.     

Extremely low prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 among healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients in Israeli hospitals: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the prevalence of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) among clinical staff in designated COVID-19 units versus that among staff in similar units with no known or suspected COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers (HCWs) in eight Israeli general hospitals. The survey involved a questionnaire and a PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We surveyed HCWs in COVID-19 units and comparison units (internal medicine and cardiology) between 30th April and 7th May 2020.ResultsThere were 522 participants: 291 from COVID-19 units and 231 from comparison units. Only one participant (0.2%, 95%CI: 0.005–1.1%)—an asymptomatic nurse on a COVID-19 unit—tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In participating COVID-19 units there were two symptomatic HCWs with confirmed COVID-19 in the 2 weeks before the survey; both were infected by contact with a co-worker outside of the COVID-19 unit.ConclusionsThe low prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs, coupled with an absence of symptomatic COVID-19 acquired during patient care, suggest that Israel's national guidelines for personal protective equipment, which are consistent with those of the World Health Organization, adequately protect HCWs.     

The importance of anosmia,ageusia and age in community presentation of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in Louisiana,USA; a cross-sectional prevalence study

ObjectiveWhile many seroprevalence studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been performed, few are demographically representative. This investigation focused on defining the nature and frequency of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a representative, cross-sectional sample of communities in Louisiana, USA.MethodsA sample of 4778 adults from New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana were given a survey of symptoms and co-morbidities, nasopharyngeal swab to test for active infection (PCR), and blood draw to test for past infection (IgG). Odds ratios, cluster analysis, quantification of virus and antibody, and linear modelling were used to understand whether certain symptoms were associated with a positive test, how symptoms grouped together, whether virus or antibody varied by symptom status, and whether being symptomatic was different across the age span.ResultsReported anosmia/ageusia was strongly associated with a positive test; 40.6% (93/229) tested positive versus 4.8% (218/4549) positivity in those who did not report anosmia/ageusia (OR 13.6, 95% CI 10.1–18.3). Of the people who tested positive, 47.3% (147/311) were completely asymptomatic. Symptom presentation clustered into three groups; low/no symptoms (0.4 ± 0.9, mean ± SD), highly symptomatic (7.5 ± 1.9) or moderately symptomatic (4.0 ± 1.5). Quantity of virus was lower in the asymptomatic versus symptomatic group (cycle number 23.3 ± 8.3 versus 17.3 ± 9.0; p < 0.001). Modelling the probability of symptoms showed changes with age; the highest probability of reporting symptoms was 64.6% (95% CI 50.4–76.5) at age 29 years, which decreased to a probability of 49.3% (95% CI 36.6–62.0) at age 60 years and only 25.1% (95% CI 5.0–68.1) at age 80 years.ConclusionAnosmia/ageusia can be used to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 infection from other illnesses, and, given the high ratio of asymptomatic individuals, contact tracing should include those without symptoms. Regular testing in congregant settings of those over age 60 years may help mitigate asymptomatic spread.     

Antibody response using six different serological assays in a completely PCR-tested community after a coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak—the CoNAN study

ObjectivesDue to a substantial proportion of asymptomatic and mild courses, many severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections remain unreported. Therefore, assessment of seroprevalence may detect the real burden of disease. We aimed to determine and characterize the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the resulting seroprevalence in a defined population. The primary objective of the study was to assess SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence using six different IgG-detecting immunoassays. Secondary objectives of the study were: (a) to determine potential risk factors for symptomatic versus asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 courses, and (b) to investigate the rate of virus RNA-persistence.MethodsCoNAN is a population-based cohort study performed in the community Neustadt am Rennsteig, Germany, which was quarantined from 22 March to 5 April after six SARS-CoV-2 cases were detected in the village's population. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak comprised 51 cases and 3 deaths. The CoNAN study was performed from 13 May to 22 May 2020, 6 weeks after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.ResultsWe enrolled a total of 626 participants (71% of the community population) for PCR and antibody testing in the study. All actual SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were negative. Fifty-two out of 620 (8.4%) participants had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in at least two different assays. There were 38 participants with previously PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of those, only 19 (50%) displayed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We also show that antibody-positive participants with symptoms compatible with a respiratory tract infection had significantly higher antibody levels then asymptomatic participants (EU-assay: median 2.9 versus 7.2 IgG-index, p 0.002; DS-assay: median 45.2 versus 143 AU/mL, p 0.002). Persisting viral replication was not detected.ConclusionsOur data question the relevance and reliability of IgG antibody testing to detect past SARS-CoV-2 infections 6 weeks after an outbreak. We conclude that assessing immunity for SARS-CoV-2 infection should not rely on antibody tests alone.     

Upper respiratory tract SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads in symptomatic and asymptomatic children and adults

ObjectivesStudies comparing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA load in the upper respiratory tract (URT) between children and adults—who either presented with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or were asymptomatic—have yielded inconsistent results. Here, we conducted a retrospective, single-centre study to address this issue.Patients and methodsIncluded were 1184 consecutive subjects (256 children and 928 adults) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal exudates (NPs); of these, 424 (121 children and 303 adults) had COVID-19 and 760 (135 children and 625 adults) were asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing was carried out using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MS, USA). The AMPLIRUN® TOTAL SARS-CoV-2 RNA Control (Vircell SA, Granada, Spain) was used for estimating SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads (in copies/mL). SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads at the time of laboratory diagnosis (single specimen/patient) were used for comparison purposes.ResultsMedian initial SARS-CoV-2 RNA load was lower (p 0.094) in children (6.98 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 3.0–11.7) than in adults (7.14 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 2.2–13.4) with COVID-19. As for asymptomatic individuals, median SARS-CoV-2 RNA load was comparable (p 0.97) in children (6.20 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 1.8–11.6) and adults (6.48 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 1.9–11.8). Children with COVID-19 symptoms displayed SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads (6.98 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 3.0–11.7) comparable to those of their asymptomatic counterparts (6.20 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 1.8–11.6) (p 0.61). Meanwhile in adults, median SARS-CoV-2 RNA load was significantly higher in symptomatic (7.14 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 2.2–13.4) than in asymptomatic subjects (6.48 log₁₀ copies/mL, range 1.9–11.8) (p < 0.001). Overall, the observed URT SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance rate was faster in children than in adults.ConclusionsBased on viral load data at the time of diagnosis, our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2-infected children, with or without COVID-19, may display NP viral loads of comparable magnitude to those found in their adult counterparts. However, children may have shorter viral shedding than adults.     

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.     

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.     

The potential of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection tests in the screening of asymptomatic persons

ObjectivesThe aim was to assess the performance of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS CoV-2 when implemented for large-scale universal screening of asymptomatic individuals.MethodsThis study was a pragmatic implementation study for universal Ag-RDT-based screening at a tertiary care hospital in Germany where patients presenting for elective procedures and selected personnel without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 were screened with an Ag-RDT since October 2020. Test performance was calculated on an individual patient level.ResultsIn total, 49 542 RDTs were performed in 27 421 asymptomatic individuals over a duration of 5 and a half months. Out of 222 positive results, 196 underwent in-house confirmatory testing with PCR, out of which 170 were confirmed positive, indicating a positive predictive value of 86.7% (95% CI 81.2–91.1%). Negative Ag-RDTs were not routinely tested with PCR, but a total of 94 cases of false negative Ag-RDTs were detected due to PCR tests being performed within the following 5 days with a median cycle threshold value of 33 (IQR 29–35).DiscussionThis study provides evidence that Ag-RDTs can have a high diagnostic yield for transmission relevant infections with limited false positives when utilized at the point of care on asymptomatic patients and thus can be a suitable public health test for universal screening.     

Prospective population-level validation of the Abbott ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 device implemented in multiple settings for testing asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals

ObjectiveDiagnostic evaluation of the ID NOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) assay in various real-world settings among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.MethodsDepending on the setting, the ID NOW testing was performed using oropharyngeal swabs (OPSs) taken from patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, asymptomatic close contacts, or asymptomatic individuals as part of outbreak point prevalence screening. From January to April 2021, a select number of sites switched from using OPS to combined oropharyngeal and nasal swab (O + NS) for ID NOW testing. For every individual tested, two swabs were collected by a health care worker: one swab (OPS or O + NS) for ID NOW testing and a separate swab (OPS or nasopharyngeal swab) for RT-PCR.ResultsA total of 129 112 paired samples were analysed (16 061 RT-PCR positive). Of these, 81 697 samples were from 42 COVID-19 community collection sites, 16 924 samples were from 69 rural hospitals, 1927 samples were from nine emergency shelters and addiction treatment facilities, 23 802 samples were from six mobile units that responded to 356 community outbreaks, and 4762 O + NS swabs were collected from three community collection sites and one emergency shelter. The ID NOW assay sensitivity was the highest among symptomatic individuals presenting to community collection sites (92.5%; 95% CI, 92.0–93.0%) and the lowest for asymptomatic individuals associated with community outbreaks (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.8–77.7%). Specificity was >99% in all populations tested.DiscussionThe sensitivity of ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing is the highest when used in symptomatic community populations not seeking medical care. Sensitivity and positive predictive value drop by approximately 10% when tested on asymptomatic populations. Using combined oropharyngeal and nasal swabs did not improve the performance of ID NOW assay.     

SARS CoV-2 infections in healthcare workers with a pre-existing T-cell response: a prospective cohort study

ObjectiveT-cell responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are observed in unexposed individuals. We evaluated the impact of this pre-existing cellular response on incident SARS-CoV-2 infections.MethodsThis was a follow-up study of 38 seronegative healthcare workers (HCWs) with previous evaluation of CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell responses after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins. Infection was considered in the presence of a positive RT-PCR test and/or confirmed seroconversion.ResultsTwenty of the 38 HCWs included (53%) had a previous specific CD8+ T-cell response to peptides encompassing the spike protein (S) in 13 (34%), the membrane (M) in 17 (45%), or/and the nucleocapsid (N) in three (8%). During a follow-up of 189 days (interquartile range (IQR) 172–195), 11 HCWs (29%) had an RT-PCR-positive test (n = 9) or seroconverted (n = 2). Median duration of symptoms was 2 days (IQR 0–7), and time to negative RT-PCR was 9 days (IQR 4–10). Notably, six incident infections (55%) occurred in HCWs with a pre-existing T-cell response (30% of those with a cellular response), who showed a significantly lower duration of symptoms (three were asymptomatic). Three of the six HCWs having a previous T-cell response continued to test seronegative. All the infected patients developed a robust T-cell response to different structural SARS-CoV-2 proteins, especially to protein S (91%).ConclusionA pre-existing T-cell response does not seem to reduce incident SARS-CoV-2 infections, but it may contribute to asymptomatic or mild disease, rapid viral clearance and differences in seroconversion.     

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infections at a testing site in Berlin,Germany, March and April 2020—a cross-sectional study

ObjectiveIn Berlin, the first public severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing site started 1 day after the first case in the city occurred. We describe epidemiological and clinical characteristics and aim at identifying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 detection during the first 6 weeks of operation.MethodsTesting followed national recommendations, but was also based on the physician's discretion. We related patient characteristics to SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for exploratory analyses using a cross-sectional, observational study design.ResultsBetween 3 March and 13 April 2020, 5179 individuals attended the site (median age 34 years; interquartile range 26–47 years). The median time since disease onset was 4 days (interquartile range 2–7 days). Among 4333 persons tested, 333 (7.7%) were positive. Test positivity increased up to 10.3% (96/929) during the first 3 weeks and then declined, paralleling Germany's lock-down and the course of the epidemic in Berlin. Strict adherence to testing guidelines resulted in 10.4% (262/2530) test positivity, compared with 3.9% (71/1803) among individuals tested for other indications. A nightclub was a transmission hotspot; 27.7% (26/94) of one night's visitors were found positive. Smell and/or taste dysfunction indicated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with 85.6% specificity (95% CI 82.1%–88.1%). Four per cent (14/333) of those infected were asymptomatic. Risk factors for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recent contact with a positive case (second week after contact, OR 3.42; 95% CI 2.48–4.71), travel to regions of high pandemic activity (e.g. Austria, OR 4.16; 95% CI 2.48–6.99), recent onset of symptoms (second week, OR 3.61; 95% CI 1.87–6.98) and an impaired sense of smell/taste (4.08; 95% CI 2.36–7.03).ConclusionsIn this young population, early-onset presentation of COVID-19 resembled flu-like symptoms, except for smell and/or taste dysfunction. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 detection were return from regions with high incidence and contact with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, particularly when tests were administered within the first 2 weeks after contact and/or onset of symptoms.     

A real-life setting evaluation of the effect of remdesivir on viral load in COVID-19 patients admitted to a large tertiary centre in Israel

ObjectivesThe effectiveness of remdesivir, a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been repeatedly questioned during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most of the recently reported studies were randomized controlled multicentre clinical trials. Our goal was to test the efficiency of remdesivir in reducing nasopharyngeal viral load and hospitalization length in a real-life setting in patients admitted to a large tertiary centre in Israel.MethodsA total of 142 COVID-19 patients found to have at least three reported SARS-CoV-2 quantitative RT-PCR tests during hospitalization were selected for this study. Of these, 29 patients received remdesivir, while the remaining non-treated 113 patients served as controls.ResultsAmong the tested parameters, the control and remdesivir groups differed significantly only in the intubation rates. Remdesivir treatment did not significantly affect nasopharyngeal viral load, as determined by comparing the differences between the first and last cycle threshold values of the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative RT-PCR tests performed during hospitalization (cycle threshold 7.07 ± 6.85 vs. 7.08 ± 7.27, p 0.977 in the control and treated groups, respectively). Remdesivir treatment shortened hospitalization length by less than a day compared with non-treated controls and by 3.1 days when non-intubated patients from both groups were compared. These differences, however, were not statistically significant, possibly because of the small size of the remdesivir group.DiscussionRemdesivir was not associated with nasopharyngeal viral load changes, but our study had a significant disease severity baseline imbalance and was not powered to detect viral load or clinical differences.     

Clinical features of neonates born to mothers with coronavirus disease-2019: A systematic review of 105 neonates

BackgroundDespite the increasingly recognized impact of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), on many aspects of health in adults and children, its effects on neonates born to infected mothers remain unclear. We conducted this study to investigate the outcomes of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched the medical databases from inception to March 31, 2020 to perform a systematic review of outcomes in neonates born to mothers with COVID-19. Data were pooled using a random effects regression model. Primary and secondary outcomes were neonatal clinical outcomes and infectious status, respectively.ResultsFourteen studies involving 105 neonates fulfilling the study criteria were identified. The rates of preterm neonates and those small for gestational age (SGA) were 25 (23.8%) and 10 (11.2%), respectively. Among 91 neonates who were tested, 8 (8.8%) were positive for nucleic acids or antibodies for SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, 28 (26.7%) of the neonates were symptomatic and two test-negative neonates died, including one stillbirth. Between test-positive and test-negative groups, the rates of SGA, preterm delivery, duration between maternal symptom onset and delivery, and perinatal complication were not significantly different; but the rate of symptomatic after birth reached significant difference (62.5% vs 20.5%, p = 0.008).ConclusionsMost neonates born to infected mothers had favorable outcomes. Although direct evidences of intrauterine infection were scarce, the risk of intrauterine infection should be considered based on a positive test in 8.8% of the neonates. Symptomatic neonates born to infected mothers should receive tests for SARS-CoV-2 to initiate appropriate treatment and quarantine. Further studies are warranted to assess the outcomes of COVID-19 in neonates.