ABSTRACT
BackgroundIn response to the CoVID-19 pandemic, our microbial diagnostic laboratory located in a university hospital has implemented several distinct SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR systems in a very short time. Thanks to our automated molecular diagnostic platform, more than 140000 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were achieved over 12 months, with peaks higher than 1500 daily tests. A dashboard was developed to give access to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to improve laboratory operational management. MethodsRT-PCR data extraction of four respiratory viruses - SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B and RSV - from our laboratory information system (LIS), was automated. Important KPIs were identified and the visualization was achieved using an in-house dashboard based on the open-source language R (Shiny). Information is updated every 4 hours. ResultsThe dashboard is organized into three main parts. The "Filter" page presents all the KPIs, divided into five sections: i) general and gender-related indicators, ii) number of tests and positivity rate, iii) cycle threshold and viral load, iv) test durations, and v) not valid results. Filtering allows to select a given period, a dedicated instrument, a given specimen, or a requester for instance. The "Comparison" page allows a custom charting of all the available variables, which represents more than 182 combinations. The "Data" page gives the user access to the raw data in table format, with the possibility of filtering, allowing for a deeper analysis and data download in Excel format. ConclusionsThe dashboard, that gives a rapid access to a huge number of up-to-date information, represents a reliable and user-friendly tool improving the decision-making process, resource planning and quality management. The dashboard represent an added value for diagnosric laboratories during a pandemic, where rapid and efficient adaptation is mandatory.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSaliva RT-PCR is an attractive alternative for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in adults with much less known in children. MethodsChildren and adolescents with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled in a comparative clinical trial of saliva and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR between November and December 2020. Detection rates and sensitivities of saliva and NP RT-PCR were compared. Participants with discordant NP and saliva RT-PCR results including viral load (VL) were also analyzed. ResultOut of 405 patients enrolled, 397 patients had two tests performed. Mean age was 12.7 years (range 1.2-17.9). Detection rates were 22.9% (95%CI 18.8-27.1%) by saliva RT-PCR, 25.4% (21.2-29.7%) by NP RT-PCR, and 26.7% (22.4-31.1%) by any test. The sensitivity of saliva was 85.2% (78.2-92.1%) when using NP as the gold standard; in contrast, when saliva was considered the gold standard, the sensitivity of NP was 94.5% (89.8-99.2%).For a NP RT-PCR VL threshold of [≥]103 and [≥]104 copies/ml, sensitivity of saliva increases to 88.7% and 95.2% respectively. Sensitivity of saliva and NP swabs was respectively 89.5% and 95.3% in patient with symptoms less than 4 days (p=0.249) and 70.0% and 95.0% in those with symptoms [≥] 4 to 7 days (p=0.096). The 15 patients who had an isolated positive NP RT-PCR were significantly younger (p=0.034), had a lower NP VL (median 5.6x103 vs 3.9x107, p<0.001), and were not able to drool saliva at the end of the sampling (p=0.002). VLs were significantly lower with saliva PCR than with NP RT-PCR (median 8.7 cp/ml x104; IQR 1.2x104-5.2x105; vs median 4.0x107cp/ml; IQR 8.6x105-1.x108; p<0.001). ConclusionSaliva PCR shows diagnostic performances close to NP RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2 detection in most symptomatic outpatient children and adolescents.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundNasopharyngeal antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) and saliva RT-PCR have shown variable performance to detect SARS-CoV-2. MethodsIn October 2020, we conducted a prospective trial involving patients presenting at testing centers with symptoms of COVID-19. We compared detection rates and performance of RDT, saliva PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR. ResultsOut of 949 patients enrolled, 928 patients had all three tests. Detection rates were 35.2% (95%CI 32.2-38.4%) by RDT, 39.8% (36.6-43.0%) by saliva PCR, 40.1% (36.9-43.3%) by NP PCR, and 41.5% (38.3-44.7%) by any test. For those with viral loads (VL) [≥]106 copies/ml, detection rates were 30.3% (27.3-33.3), 31.4% (28.4-34.5), 31.5% (28.5-34.6), and 31.6% (28.6-34.7%) respectively. Sensitivity of RDT compared to NP PCR was 87.4% (83.6-90.6%) for all positive patients and 96.5% (93.6-98.3%) for those with VL[≥]106. Sensitivity of STANDARD-Q(R), Panbio and COVID-VIRO(R) Ag tests were 92.9% (86.4-96.9%), 86.1% (78.6-91.7%) and 84.1% (76.9-89.7%), respectively. For those with VL[≥]106, sensitivities were 96.6% (90.5-99.3%), 97.8% (92.1-99.7%) and 95.3% (89.4-98.5%) respectively. Specificity of RDT was 100% (99.3-100%) compared to any PCR. RDT sensitivity was similar <4 days (87.8%) and [≥]4 days (85.7%) after symptoms onset (p=0.6). Sensitivities of saliva and NP PCR were 95.7% (93.1-97.5%) and 96.5% (94.1-98.1%), respectively, compared to the other PCR. ConclusionsThe high performance of RDTs allows rapid identification of COVID cases with immediate isolation of the vast majority of contagious individuals. RDT could be a game changer in primary care practices, and even more so in resource-constrained settings. PCR on saliva can replace NP PCR. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been associated with a large variety of neurological disorders. However the mechanisms underlying these neurological complications remain elusive. In this study we aimed at determining whether neurological symptoms were caused by SARS-CoV-2 direct infection or by either systemic or local pro-inflammatory mediators. MethodsWe checked for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-qPCR, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and for 49 cytokines/chemokines/growth factors (by Luminex) in the cerebrospinal fluids (CSF) +/-sera of a cohort of 22 COVID-19 patients with neurological presentation and 55 neurological control patients (inflammatory [IND], non-inflammatory [NIND], multiple sclerosis [MS]). ResultsWe detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA and virus-specific antibodies in the CSF of 0/22 and 10/21 COVID-19 patients, respectively. Of the four categories of tested patients, the CSF of IND exhibited the highest level of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors. In contrast, COVID-19 patients did not present overall upregulation of inflammatory mediators in the CSF. However, the CSF of patients with severe COVID-19 (ICU patients) exhibited higher concentrations of CCL2, CXCL8, and VEGF-A in the CSF than patients with a milder form of COVID-19. In addition, we could show that intrathecal CXCL8 synthesis was linked to an elevated barrier index and correlated to the increase of peripheral inflammation (serum HGF and CXCL10). ConclusionOur results point at an absence of massive SARS-CoV-2 infection or inflammation of the central nervous system, but highlight a specific impairment of the neurovascular unit linked to intrathecal production of CXCL8.
ABSTRACT
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, important health and regulatory decisions relied on SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results. Our diagnostic laboratory faced a rapid increase in the number of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, with up to 1,007 tests per day. To maintain a rapid turnaround time to support patient management and public health authorities decisions, we moved from a case-by-case validation of RT-PCR to an automated validation and immediate transmission of the results to clinicians. To maintain high quality and to track possible aberrant results, we developed a quality-monitoring tool based on a homemade algorithm coded in R. We present the results of this quality-monitoring tool applied to 35,137 RT-PCR results corresponding to 30,198 patients. Patients tested several times led to 4,939 pairwise comparisons; 88% concordant and 12% discrepant. Among the 573 discrepancies, 428 were automatically solved by the algorithm. The most likely explanation for these 573 discrepancies was related for 44.9% of the situations to "Clinical evolution", 27.9% to "Preanalytical" problems, and 25.3% to "Stochastic". Finally, 11 discrepant results could not be explained, including 8 received from external partners for which clinical data were not available. The implemented quality-monitoring strategy allowed to: i) assist the investigation of discrepant results ii) focus the attention of medical microbiologists onto results requiring a specific expertise and iii) maintain an acceptable TAT. This work highlighted the high RT-PCR consistency for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and the importance of automated processes to handle a huge number of samples while preserving quality.
ABSTRACT
RT-PCRs to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA is key to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed SARS-CoV-2 viral loads from 22323 RT-PCR results according to samples types, gender, age, and health units. Viral load did not show any difference across age and appears to be a poor predictor of disease outcome. SARS-CoV-2 viral load showed similar high viral loads than the one observed for RSV and influenza B. The importance of viral load to predict contagiousness and to assess disease progression is discussed.
ABSTRACT
On April 25th, corresponding to the first deconfinement phase after the end of the lockdown in Switzerland, a universal admission screening strategy for COVID-19 was introduced in our hospital. All patients, including asymptomatic patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In addition to a qualitative answer, providing viral load values to the RT-PCR results not only helped the clinician to evaluate the stage of the infection but addressed patient contagiousness and guided infection control decisions. Here, we discuss the importance of reporting viral load values when a shift from a symptomatic to a universal screening strategy was performed.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThese last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests. MethodsIn a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other virus. ResultsIn the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, four had a sensitivity and specificity above 90% and 98% respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no tests showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response, and that anti-nucleocapside (anti-N) antibodies appeared earlier than the anti-spike (anti-S) proteins. ConclusionsThe identified SARS-CoV-2 serology tests may be used for the diagnostic of CoviD-19 for negative RT-PCR patients presenting severe to mild suggestive symptoms or particular clinical presentation. Detection of both anti-N and anti-S could be complementary to increase the sensitivity of the analysis.
ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 detection is mainly performed by RT-PCR but recently serological tests were made available. A first one month follow-up of the SARS-CoV-2 serology records was performed in our laboratory to precise the diversity and proportion of the SARS-CoV-2 serology test indications and to identify new valid indications (meningoencephalitis, vasculitis, ...)
ABSTRACT
BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is now a global pandemic with Europe and the USA at its epicenter. Little is known about risk factors for progression to severe disease in Europe. This study aims to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 patients in a Swiss university hospital. MethodsThis retrospective observational study included all adult patients hospitalized with a laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 1 to March 25, 2020. We extracted data from electronic health records. The primary outcome was the need to mechanical ventilation at day 14. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify risk factors for mechanical ventilation. Follow-up was of at least 14 days. Results200 patients were included, of whom 37 (18{middle dot}5%) needed mechanical ventilation at 14 days. The median time from symptoms onset to mechanical ventilation was 9{middle dot}5 days (IQR 7.00, 12.75). Multivariable regression showed increased odds of mechanical ventilation in males (3.26, 1.21-9.8; p=0.025), in patients who presented with a qSOFA score [≥]2 (6.02, 2.09-18.82; p=0.001), with bilateral infiltrate (5.75, 1.91-21.06; p=0.004) or with a CRP of 40 mg/l or greater (4.73, 1.51-18.58; p=0.013). ConclusionsThis study gives some insight in the epidemiology and clinical course of patients admitted in a European tertiary hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Male sex, high qSOFA score, CRP of 40 mg/l or greater and a bilateral radiological infiltrate could help clinicians identify patients at high risk for mechanical ventilation.
ABSTRACT
The diagnosis of mycobacterial infections has been dramatically improved by the introduction of molecular methods aimed to reduce the time to diagnosis as compared with culture. The broad range pan-mycobacterial PCR can detect all the mycobacterial species directly from clinical specimens. We aimed to evaluate its usefulness and its clinical added value for the diagnosis of nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) infections. We performed a retrospective study (2003-2013) including 952 samples taken from 639 patients with clinical suspicion of NTM infection. The performance of smear microscopy, PCR and culture was established using clinical data to investigate discrepant results. We also compared the time to microbial diagnosis between the direct PCR and culture. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the PCR were 61.6% (53.5-69.1), 99.1% (98.2-99.6), 92.8% (85.8-96.5) and 93.4% (91.6-94.9), respectively, when considering all specimens. When considering smear-positive specimens and smear-negative specimens, the sensitivity was 81.6% and 40%, respectively. The sensitivity for pulmonary and extra-pulmonary smear-positive specimens was 85.2% versus 72.7%. The median time to identification at species level was 35 days (SD, 17.67) for culture and 6 days (SD, 2.67) for the PCR (when positive), which represents a 29-day shorter time to results (p < 0.0001). The 16S rRNA gene pan-mycobacterial PCR displays a substantial benefit in terms of time to diagnose NTM infections when compared with culture. Despite an excellent specificity, its sensitivity is yet limited in particular for smear-negative specimens, which might be improved by relying onto real-time PCRs.