Testing Frequency Matters: An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Antigen Test in US Correctional Facilities.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends serial rapid antigen assay collection within congregate facilities. Although modeling and observational studies from communities and long-term care facilities have shown serial collection provides adequate sensitivity and specificity, the accuracy within correctional facilities remains unknown. METHODS: Using Connecticut Department of Correction data from 21 November 2020 to 15 June 2021, we estimated the accuracy of a rapid assay, BinaxNOW (Abbott), under 3 collection strategies: single test collection and serial collection of 2 and 3 tests separated by 1-4 days. The sensitivity and specificity of the first (including single), second, and third serially collected BinaxNOW tests were estimated relative to RT-PCRs collected ≤1 day of the BinaxNOW test. The accuracy metrics of the testing strategies were then estimated as the sum (sensitivity) and product (specificity) of tests in each strategy. RESULTS: Of the 13 112 residents who contributed ≥1 BinaxNOW test during the study period, 3825 contributed ≥1 RT-PCR paired BinaxNOW test. In relation to RT-PCR, the 3-rapid-antigen-test strategy had a sensitivity of 95.9% (95% CI: 93.6-97.5%) and specificity of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.7-99.1%). The sensitivities of the 2- and 1-rapid-antigen-test strategies were 88.8% and 66.8%, and the specificities were 98.5% and 99.4%, respectively. The sensitivity was higher among symptomatic residents and when RT-PCRs were collected before BinaxNOW tests. CONCLUSIONS: We found serial antigen test collection resulted in high diagnostic accuracy. These findings support serial collection for outbreak investigation, screening, and when rapid detection is required (such as intakes or transfers).

Association between primary or booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and Omicron lineage BA.1 SARS-CoV-2 infection in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: A test-negative case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of primary (two-dose series) and booster (third dose) mRNA vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with a prior documented infection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study of reverse transcription PCRs (RT-PCRs) analyzed with the TaqPath (Thermo Fisher Scientific) assay and recorded in the Yale New Haven Health system from November 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Overall, 11,307 cases (positive TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs with S-gene target failure [SGTF]) and 130,041 controls (negative TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs) were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 5.9% and 8.1% had a documented prior infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test record ≥90 days prior to the included test), respectively. We estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination relative to SGTF-defined Omicron (lineage BA.1) variant infection using a logistic regression adjusted for date of test, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidities, social venerability index, municipality, and healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14 to 149 days after the second dose was 41.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 14.1% to 59.4%, p 0.006) and 27.1% (95% CI: 18.7% to 34.6%, p < 0.001) for people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination (≥14 days after booster dose) was 47.1% (95% CI: 22.4% to 63.9%, p 0.001) and 54.1% (95% CI: 49.2% to 58.4%, p < 0.001) in people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds of infection among boosted (≥14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people (≥150 days after second dose). The odds ratio (OR) comparing boosted and booster-eligible people with a documented prior infection was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.16, p 0.222), whereas the OR comparing boosted and booster-eligible people without a documented prior infection was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.59, p < 0.001). This study's limitations include the risk of residual confounding, the use of data from a single system, and the reliance on TaqPath analyzed RT-PCR results. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection against Omicron BA.1 infection in people without a documented prior infection, it was not found to be associated with additional protection among people with a documented prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of documented prior infection status but suggest that infection history may impact the relative benefit of booster doses.

De novo emergence of a remdesivir resistance mutation during treatment of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in an immunocompromised patient: a case report.

SARS-CoV-2 remdesivir resistance mutations have been generated in vitro but have not been reported in patients receiving treatment with the antiviral agent. We present a case of an immunocompromised patient with acquired B-cell deficiency who developed an indolent, protracted course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remdesivir therapy alleviated symptoms and produced a transient virologic response, but her course was complicated by recrudescence of high-grade viral shedding. Whole genome sequencing identified a mutation, E802D, in the nsp12 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which was not present in pre-treatment specimens. In vitro experiments demonstrated that the mutation conferred a ~6-fold increase in remdesivir IC50 but resulted in a fitness cost in the absence of remdesivir. Sustained clinical and virologic response was achieved after treatment with casirivimab-imdevimab. Although the fitness cost observed in vitro may limit the risk posed by E802D, this case illustrates the importance of monitoring for remdesivir resistance and the potential benefit of combinatorial therapies in immunocompromised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.