Timing and Predictors of Loss of Infectivity Among Healthcare Workers With Mild Primary and Recurrent COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand the duration of infectivity of primary and recurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and identify predictors of loss of infectivity. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study with serial viral culture, rapid antigen detection test (RADT) and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal specimens of healthcare workers with COVID-19. The primary outcome was viral culture positivity as indicative of infectivity. Predictors of loss of infectivity were determined using multivariate regression model. The performance of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria (fever resolution, symptom improvement, and negative RADT) to predict loss of infectivity was also investigated. RESULTS: In total, 121 participants (91 female [79.3%]; average age, 40 years) were enrolled. Most (n = 107, 88.4%) had received ≥3 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine doses, and 20 (16.5%) had COVID-19 previously. Viral culture positivity decreased from 71.9% (87/121) on day 5 of infection to 18.2% (22/121) on day 10. Participants with recurrent COVID-19 had a lower likelihood of infectivity than those with primary COVID-19 at each follow-up (day 5 odds ratio [OR], 0.14; P < .001]; day 7 OR, 0.04; P = .003]) and were all non-infective by day 10 (P = .02). Independent predictors of infectivity included prior COVID-19 (adjusted OR [aOR] on day 5, 0.005; P = .003), an RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] value <23 (aOR on day 5, 22.75; P < .001) but not symptom improvement or RADT result.The CDC criteria would identify 36% (24/67) of all non-infectious individuals on day 7. However, 17% (5/29) of those meeting all the criteria had a positive viral culture. CONCLUSIONS: Infectivity of recurrent COVID-19 is shorter than primary infections. Loss of infectivity algorithms could be optimized.

Evaluation of the performance of multiple immunoassay diagnostic platforms on the National Microbiology Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 National Serology Panel.

BACKGROUND: Serological assays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are being used in serological surveys and other specialized applications. As a result, and to ensure that the outcomes of serological testing meet high quality standards, evaluations are required to assess the performance of these assays and the proficiency of laboratories performing them. METHODS: A panel of 60 plasma/serum samples from blood donors who had reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 21 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples were secured and distributed to interested laboratories within Canada (n = 30) and the United States (n = 1). Participating laboratories were asked to provide details on the diagnostic assays used, the platforms the assays were performed on, and the results obtained for each panel sample. Laboratories were blinded with respect to the expected outcomes. RESULTS: The performance of the different assays evaluated was excellent, with the high-throughput platforms of Roche, Ortho, and Siemens demonstrating 100% sensitivity. Most other high-throughput platforms had sensitivities of >93%, with the exception of the IgG assay using the Abbott ARCHITECT which had an average sensitivity of only 87%. The majority of the high-throughput platforms also demonstrated very good specificities (>97%). CONCLUSION: This proficiency study demonstrates that most of the SARS-CoV-2 serological assays utilized by provincial public health or hospital laboratories in Canada have acceptable sensitivity and excellent specificity.

HISTORIQUE: Les dosages sérologiques conçus pour dépister les anticorps anti-SRAS-CoV-2 sont utilisés dans les études sérologiques et d'autres applications spécialisées. Par conséquent, et pour s'assurer que leurs résultats respectent des normes de qualité, il faut procéder à des évaluations de leur performance et de la compétence des laboratoires à les effectuer. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les chercheurs ont obtenu une batterie de 60 prélèvements de plasma et de sérum chez des donneurs dont l'amplification en chaîne par polymérase après transcription inverse (RT-PCR) avait confirmé des infections par le SRAS-CoV-2 et de 21 prélèvements dont les résultats étaient négatifs au SRAS-CoV-2 et les ont distribués aux laboratoires intéressés du Canada (n = 30) et des États-Unis (n = 1). Ils ont invité les laboratoires participants à fournir de l'information détaillée sur les dosages diagnostiques utilisés, les plateformes sur lesquelles les dosages étaient exécutés et les résultats obtenus pour chaque échantillon. Les chercheurs ont demandé aux laboratoires participants de fournir de l'information détaillée sur les dosages diagnostiques utilisés, les plateformes sur lesquelles les dosages ont été effectués, et les résultats obtenus à l'égard de chaque échantillon. Les laboratoires ont mené les études à l'insu des résultats escomptés. RÉSULTATS: Les divers dosages avaient une excellente exécution, les plateformes à haut débit de Roche, d'Ortho et de Siemens démontrant une sensibilité de 100 %. La plupart des autres plateformes à haut débit avaient des sensibilités de plus de 93 %, à l'exception des dosages des IgG faisant appel à l'analyseur ARCHITECT d'Abbott, dont la sensibilité moyenne était de seulement 87 %. La majorité des plateformes à haut débit avaient également une très bonne spécificité (plus de 97 %). CONCLUSION: La présente étude de compétence démontre que la plupart des dosages sérologiques du SRAS-CoV-2 évalués dans des laboratoires sanitaires provinciaux ou les laboratoires hospitaliers du Canada possèdent une sensibilité acceptable et une excellente spécificité.

Performance of Bio-Rad and Limiting Antigen Avidity Assays in Detecting Recent HIV Infections Using the Quebec Primary HIV-1 Infection Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and practical biologic tools to estimate HIV incidence is crucial to better monitor the epidemic and evaluate the effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment programs. METHODS: We evaluated two avidity assays to measure recent HIV infection: the Sedia HIV-1 LAg-Avidity EIA (Sedia Biosciences, Portland) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Mississauga, ON). Longitudinal specimens (n = 473) obtained from 123 treatment-naive seroconverted individuals enrolled in the Primary HIV-1 Infection (PHI) cohort of Quebec were used to determine the average time an individual is considered to be recently infected (mean duration of recent infection; MDRI), for the two avidity assays alone and in combination using a nonparametric survival method analysis. A total of 420 specimens from individuals with established HIV infection (90 individuals from the PHI cohort of Quebec and 330 individuals from the Laboratoire de santé publique du Quebec (LSPQ) serobank) were also tested to investigate false recency rate (FRR). RESULTS: The CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity gave an estimated MDRI of 234 days (95% CI 220-249) at the avidity index cutoff of 30% while the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay gave an estimated MDRI of 120 days (95% CI 109-132) at the normalized optical density (ODn) cutoff of 1.5. The FRR among individuals with established HIV infection was 10.2% (7.5%-13.5%) with the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay as compared to 6.0% (3.9%-8.7%) with the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay. When optimizing a multiassay algorithm (MAA) that includes sequentially the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay then the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay EIA (avidity index/ODn: 30%/1.7), the MDRI was 136 days (95% CI 123-148) and the FRR, 3.3% (95% CI 1.8-5.6). CONCLUSION: Multiassay algorithms that include the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay and the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay performed better than each avidity assay alone. Such 2-assay algorithm that starts with the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay followed by the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay allowed a better classification of HIV-1 infections.