Epidemiologic, Immunologic, and Virus Characteristics in Patients With Paired Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serology and Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing.

BACKGROUND: The natural history and clinical progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections can be better understood using combined serological and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs and serum were collected at a single time-point from patients at an urban, public hospital during August-November 2020 and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR, viral culture, and anti-spike pan-immunoglobulin antibody testing. Participant demographics and symptoms were collected through interview. The χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to identify associations between RT-PCR and serology results with presence of viable virus and frequency of symptoms. RESULTS: Among 592 participants, 129 (21.8%) had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR or serology. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was strongly associated with lack of viable virus (P = .016). COVID-19 symptom frequency was similar for patients testing RT-PCR positive/seronegative and patients testing RT-PCR positive/seropositive. Patients testing RT-PCR positive/seronegative reported headaches, fatigue, diarrhea, and vomiting at rates not statistically significantly different from those testing RT-PCR negative/seropositive. CONCLUSIONS: While patients testing SARS-CoV-2 seropositive were unlikely to test positive for viable virus and were therefore at low risk for forward transmission, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms were common. Paired SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antibody testing provides more nuanced understanding of patients' COVID-19 status.

Evaluating the Presence of Replication-Competent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From Nursing Home Residents With Persistently Positive Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Results.

Replication-competent virus has not been detected in individuals with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) more than 10 days after symptom onset. It is unknown whether these findings apply to nursing home residents. Of 273 specimens collected from nursing home residents >10 days from the initial positive test, none were culture positive.

Relationship of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen and Reverse Transcription PCR Positivity for Viral Cultures.

We assessed the relationship between antigen and reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) test positivity and successful virus isolation. We found that antigen test results were more predictive of virus recovery than RT-PCR results. However, virus was isolated from some antigen-negative and RT-PCR‒positive paired specimens, providing support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention antigen testing algorithm.

Performance Characteristics of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test in Comparison to Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR and Viral Culture in Community Testing Sites during November 2020.

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease, or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During 3 to 17 November 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status, and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here, we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8 to 10 days postexposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 h for BinaxNOW and 26 h for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turnaround time than laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.

Evaluation of self-administered antigen testing in a college setting.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our investigation was to better understand barriers to implementation of self-administered antigen screening testing for SARS-CoV-2 at institutions of higher education (IHE). METHODS: Using the Quidel QuickVue At-Home COVID-19 Test, 1347 IHE students and staff were asked to test twice weekly for seven weeks. We assessed seroconversion using baseline and endline serum specimens. Online surveys assessed acceptability. RESULTS: Participants reported 9971 self-administered antigen test results. Among participants who were not antibody positive at baseline, the median number of tests reported was eight. Among 324 participants seronegative at baseline, with endline antibody results and ≥ 1 self-administered antigen test results, there were five COVID-19 infections; only one was detected by self-administered antigen test (sensitivity = 20%). Acceptability of self-administered antigen tests was high. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-weekly serial self-administered antigen testing in a low prevalence period had low utility in this investigation. Issues of testing fatigue will be important to address in future testing strategies.

Shedding of Culturable Virus, Seroconversion, and 6-Month Follow-up Antibody Responses in the First 14 Confirmed Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the United States.

We aimed to characterize presence of culturable virus in clinical specimens during acute illness, and antibody kinetics up to 6 months after symptom onset, among 14 early patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in the United States. We isolated viable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction-positive respiratory specimens collected during days 0-8 after onset, but not after. All 13 patients with 2 or more serum specimens developed anti-spike antibodies; 12 developed detectable neutralizing antibodies. We did not isolate virus after detection of neutralizing antibodies. Eight participants provided serum at 6 months after onset; all retained detectable anti-spike immunoglobulin G, and half had detectable neutralizing antibodies. Two participants reported not feeling fully recovered at 6 months.

Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 on Self-Collected Saliva or Anterior Nasal Specimens Compared With Healthcare Personnel-Collected Nasopharyngeal Specimens.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva specimens (SS) or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive, but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected SS and ANS before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR); viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. The sensitivity of SS and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against that of NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. RESULTS: Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for SS than for ANS (85% vs 80%) and higher among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs 29% for SS; 87% vs 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, the sensitivities of SS and ANS by rRT-PCR were 94% and 100%, respectively. SS and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS collection again despite this method's being the least preferred. CONCLUSIONS: SS were slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection with rRT-PCR. With both SS and ANS, SARS-CoV-2 was reliably detected among participants with symptoms. Self-collected SS and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms.

Clinical and Laboratory Findings in Patients With Potential Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Reinfection, May-July 2020.

BACKGROUND: We investigated patients with potential severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection in the United States during May-July 2020. METHODS: We conducted case finding for patients with potential SARS-CoV-2 reinfection through the Emerging Infections Network. Cases reported were screened for laboratory and clinical findings of potential reinfection followed by requests for medical records and laboratory specimens. Available medical records were abstracted to characterize patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical course, and laboratory test results. Submitted specimens underwent further testing, including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), viral culture, whole genome sequencing, subgenomic RNA PCR, and testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody. RESULTS: Among 73 potential reinfection patients with available records, 30 patients had recurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms explained by alternative diagnoses with concurrent SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR, 24 patients remained asymptomatic after recovery but had recurrent or persistent RT-PCR, and 19 patients had recurrent COVID-19 symptoms with concurrent SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR but no alternative diagnoses. These 19 patients had symptom recurrence a median of 57 days after initial symptom onset (interquartile range: 47-76). Six of these patients had paired specimens available for further testing, but none had laboratory findings confirming reinfections. Testing of an additional 3 patients with recurrent symptoms and alternative diagnoses also did not confirm reinfection. CONCLUSIONS: We did not confirm SARS-CoV-2 reinfection within 90 days of the initial infection based on the clinical and laboratory characteristics of cases in this investigation. Our findings support current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance around quarantine and testing for patients who have recovered from COVID-19.

Epidemiologic Characteristics Associated With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antigen-Based Test Results, Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Cycle Threshold Values, Subgenomic RNA, and Viral Culture Results From University Testing.

BACKGROUND: Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and antigen tests are important diagnostics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Sensitivity of antigen tests has been shown to be lower than that of rRT-PCR; however, data to evaluate epidemiologic characteristics that affect test performance are limited. METHODS: Paired mid-turbinate nasal swabs were collected from university students and staff and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using both Quidel Sofia SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) and rRT-PCR assay. Specimens positive by either rRT-PCR or antigen FIA were placed in viral culture and tested for subgenomic RNA (sgRNA). Logistic regression models were used to evaluate characteristics associated with antigen results, rRT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, sgRNA, and viral culture. RESULTS: Antigen FIA sensitivity was 78.9% and 43.8% among symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, respectively. Among rRT-PCR positive participants, negative antigen results were more likely among asymptomatic participants (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-15.4) and less likely among participants reporting nasal congestion (OR 0.1, 95% CI: .03-.8). rRT-PCR-positive specimens with higher Ct values (OR 0.5, 95% CI: .4-.8) were less likely, and specimens positive for sgRNA (OR 10.2, 95% CI: 1.6-65.0) more likely, to yield positive virus isolation. Antigen testing was >90% positive in specimens with Ct values < 29. Positive predictive value of antigen test for positive viral culture (57.7%) was similar to that of rRT-PCR (59.3%). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 antigen test advantages include low cost, wide availability and rapid turnaround time, making them important screening tests. The performance of antigen tests may vary with patient characteristics, so performance characteristics should be accounted for when designing testing strategies and interpreting results.

Characteristics and Timing of Initial Virus Shedding in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Utah, USA.

Virus shedding in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can occur before onset of symptoms; less is known about symptom progression or infectiousness associated with initiation of viral shedding. We investigated household transmission in 5 households with daily specimen collection for 5 consecutive days starting a median of 4 days after symptom onset in index patients. Seven contacts across 2 households implementing no precautionary measures were infected. Of these 7, 2 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR on day 3 of 5. Both had mild, nonspecific symptoms for 1-3 days preceding the first positive test. SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from the fourth-day specimen in 1 patient and from the fourth- and fifth-day specimens in the other. We also describe infection control measures taken in the households that had no transmission. Persons exposed to SARS-CoV-2 should self-isolate, including from household contacts, wear a mask, practice hand hygiene, and seek testing promptly.

Point-of-Care Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 in Asymptomatic College Students.

We used the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card to screen 1,540 asymptomatic college students for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in a low-prevalence setting. Compared with reverse transcription PCR, BinaxNOW showed 20% overall sensitivity; among participants with culturable virus, sensitivity was 60%. BinaxNOW provides point-of-care screening but misses many infections.

Rapid Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Detention Facility, Louisiana, USA, May-June, 2020.

To assess transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a detention facility experiencing a coronavirus disease outbreak and evaluate testing strategies, we conducted a prospective cohort investigation in a facility in Louisiana, USA. We conducted SARS-CoV-2 testing for detained persons in 6 quarantined dormitories at various time points. Of 143 persons, 53 were positive at the initial test, and an additional 58 persons were positive at later time points (cumulative incidence 78%). In 1 dormitory, all 45 detained persons initially were negative; 18 days later, 40 (89%) were positive. Among persons who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 47% (52/111) were asymptomatic at the time of specimen collection; 14 had replication-competent virus isolated. Serial SARS-CoV-2 testing might help interrupt transmission through medical isolation and quarantine. Testing in correctional and detention facilities will be most effective when initiated early in an outbreak, inclusive of all exposed persons, and paired with infection prevention and control.

Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant Infections Among Incarcerated Persons in a Federal Prison - Texas, July-August 2021.

Incarcerated populations have experienced disproportionately higher rates of COVID-19-related illness and death compared with the general U.S. population, due in part to congregate living environments that can facilitate rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and the high prevalence of underlying medical conditions associated with severe COVID-19 (1,2). The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant has caused outbreaks among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in congregate settings and large public gatherings (3,4). During July 2021, a COVID-19 outbreak involving the Delta variant was identified in a federal prison in Texas, infecting 172 of 233 (74%) incarcerated persons in two housing units. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) partnered with CDC to investigate. CDC analyzed data on infection status, symptom onset date, hospitalizations, and deaths among incarcerated persons. The attack rate was higher among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons (39 of 42, 93% versus 129 of 185, 70%; p = 0.002).† Four persons were hospitalized, three of whom were unvaccinated, and one person died, who was unvaccinated. Among a subset of 70 persons consenting to an embedded serial swabbing protocol, the median interval between symptom onset and last positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result in fully vaccinated versus unvaccinated persons was similar (9 versus 11 days, p = 0.37). One or more specimens were culture-positive from five of 12 (42%) unvaccinated and 14 of 37 (38%) fully vaccinated persons for whom viral culture was attempted. In settings where physical distancing is challenging, including correctional and detention facilities, vaccination and implementation of multicomponent prevention strategies (e.g., testing, medical isolation, quarantine, and masking) are critical to limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission (5).

Performance of an Antigen-Based Test for Asymptomatic and Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Testing at Two University Campuses - Wisconsin, September-October 2020.

Antigen-based tests for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), are inexpensive and can return results within 15 minutes (1). Antigen tests have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use in asymptomatic and symptomatic persons within the first 5-12 days after symptom onset (2). These tests have been used at U.S. colleges and universities and other congregate settings (e.g., nursing homes and correctional and detention facilities), where serial testing of asymptomatic persons might facilitate early case identification (3-5). However, test performance data from symptomatic and asymptomatic persons are limited. This investigation evaluated performance of the Sofia SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA) (Quidel Corporation) compared with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 detection among asymptomatic and symptomatic persons at two universities in Wisconsin. During September 28-October 9, a total of 1,098 paired nasal swabs were tested using the Sofia SARS Antigen FIA and real-time RT-PCR. Virus culture was attempted on all antigen-positive or real-time RT-PCR-positive specimens. Among 871 (79%) paired swabs from asymptomatic participants, the antigen test sensitivity was 41.2%, specificity was 98.4%, and in this population the estimated positive predictive value (PPV) was 33.3%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.8%. Antigen test performance was improved among 227 (21%) paired swabs from participants who reported one or more symptoms at specimen collection (sensitivity = 80.0%; specificity = 98.9%; PPV = 94.1%; NPV = 95.9%). Virus was isolated from 34 (46.6%) of 73 antigen-positive or real-time RT-PCR-positive nasal swab specimens, including two of 18 that were antigen-negative and real-time RT-PCR-positive (false-negatives). The advantages of antigen tests such as low cost and rapid turnaround might allow for rapid identification of infectious persons. However, these advantages need to be balanced against lower sensitivity and lower PPV, especially among asymptomatic persons. Confirmatory testing with an FDA-authorized nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), such as RT-PCR, should be considered after negative antigen test results in symptomatic persons, and after positive antigen test results in asymptomatic persons (1).

Evaluation of Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Two Community-Based Testing Sites - Pima County, Arizona, November 3-17, 2020.

Rapid antigen tests, such as the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), offer results more rapidly (approximately 15-30 minutes) and at a lower cost than do highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) (1). Rapid antigen tests have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use in symptomatic persons (2), but data are lacking on test performance in asymptomatic persons to inform expanded screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons (3). To evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, it was used along with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing to analyze 3,419 paired specimens collected from persons aged ≥10 years at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona, during November 3-17, 2020. Viral culture was performed on 274 of 303 residual real-time RT-PCR specimens with positive results by either test (29 were not available for culture). Compared with real-time RT-PCR testing, the BinaxNOW antigen test had a sensitivity of 64.2% for specimens from symptomatic persons and 35.8% for specimens from asymptomatic persons, with near 100% specificity in specimens from both groups. Virus was cultured from 96 of 274 (35.0%) specimens, including 85 (57.8%) of 147 with concordant antigen and real-time RT-PCR positive results, 11 (8.9%) of 124 with false-negative antigen test results, and none of three with false-positive antigen test results. Among specimens positive for viral culture, sensitivity was 92.6% for symptomatic and 78.6% for asymptomatic individuals. When the pretest probability for receiving positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 is elevated (e.g., in symptomatic persons or in persons with a known COVID-19 exposure), a negative antigen test result should be confirmed by NAAT (1). Despite a lower sensitivity to detect infection, rapid antigen tests can be an important tool for screening because of their quick turnaround time, lower costs and resource needs, high specificity, and high positive predictive value (PPV) in settings of high pretest probability. The faster turnaround time of the antigen test can help limit transmission by more rapidly identifying infectious persons for isolation, particularly when used as a component of serial testing strategies.

Serologic Follow-up of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Cases and Contacts-Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Background: Although there is evidence of person-to-person transmission of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in household and healthcare settings, more data are needed to describe and better understand the risk factors and transmission routes in both settings, as well as the extent to which disease severity affects transmission. Methods: A seroepidemiological investigation was conducted among MERS-CoV case patients (cases) and their household contacts to investigate transmission risk in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Cases diagnosed between 1 January 2013 and 9 May 2014 and their household contacts were approached for enrollment. Demographic, clinical, and exposure history data were collected. Sera were screened by MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence, with results confirmed by microneutralization assay. Results: Thirty-one of 34 (91%) case patients were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and did not require oxygen during hospitalization. MERS-CoV antibodies were detected in 13 of 24 (54%) case patients with available sera, including 1 severely symptomatic, 9 mildly symptomatic, and 3 asymptomatic case patients. No serologic evidence of MERS-CoV transmission was found among 105 household contacts with available sera. Conclusions: Transmission of MERS-CoV was not documented in this investigation of mostly asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases and their household contacts. These results have implications for clinical management of cases and formulation of isolation policies to reduce the risk of transmission.

Update: Interim Guidance for Health Care Providers Caring for Pregnant Women with Possible Zika Virus Exposure - United States (Including U.S. Territories), July 2017.

CDC has updated the interim guidance for U.S. health care providers caring for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure in response to 1) declining prevalence of Zika virus disease in the World Health Organization's Region of the Americas (Americas) and 2) emerging evidence indicating prolonged detection of Zika virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies. Zika virus cases were first reported in the Americas during 2015-2016; however, the incidence of Zika virus disease has since declined. As the prevalence of Zika virus disease declines, the likelihood of false-positive test results increases. In addition, emerging epidemiologic and laboratory data indicate that, as is the case with other flaviviruses, Zika virus IgM antibodies can persist beyond 12 weeks after infection. Therefore, IgM test results cannot always reliably distinguish between an infection that occurred during the current pregnancy and one that occurred before the current pregnancy, particularly for women with possible Zika virus exposure before the current pregnancy. These limitations should be considered when counseling pregnant women about the risks and benefits of testing for Zika virus infection during pregnancy. This updated guidance emphasizes a shared decision-making model for testing and screening pregnant women, one in which patients and providers work together to make decisions about testing and care plans based on patient preferences and values, clinical judgment, and a balanced assessment of risks and expected outcomes.

Who directs group movement? Leader effort versus follower preference in stickleback fish of different personality.

During collective movement, bolder individuals often emerge as leaders. Here, we investigate whether this reflects a greater propensity of bold individuals to initiate movement, or a preference for shy individuals to follow a bolder leader. We set up trios of stickleback fish comprising a focal individual who was either bold or shy, and one other individual of each personality. We then recorded the movements of all individuals in and out of cover in a foraging context to determine how assiduously the focal fish followed the movements of each other partner. We found that a shy focal fish preferred to follow a leader whose personality matched its own, but we did not detect such a difference in bold fish. Despite this preference, however, the greater propensity of bold individuals to initiate movements out of cover meant that they successfully led more joint trips. Thus, when offered a choice of leaders, sticklebacks prefer to follow individuals whose personality matches their own, but bolder individuals may, nevertheless, be able to impose their leadership, even among shy followers, simply through greater effort.