A SARS-CoV-2 Negative Antigen Rapid Diagnostic in RT-qPCR Positive Samples Correlates With a Low Likelihood of Infectious Viruses in the Nasopharynx.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) transmission occurs even among fully vaccinated individuals; thus, prompt identification of infected patients is central to control viral circulation. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are highly specific, but sensitivity is variable. Discordant RT-qPCR vs. Ag-RDT results are reported, raising the question of whether negative Ag-RDT in positive RT-qPCR samples could imply the absence of infectious viruses. To study the relationship between negative Ag-RDT results with virological, molecular, and serological parameters, we selected a cross-sectional and a follow-up dataset and analyzed virus culture, subgenomic RNA quantification, and sequencing to determine infectious viruses and mutations. We demonstrated that RT-qPCR positive while SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT negative discordant results correlate with the absence of infectious virus in nasopharyngeal samples. A decrease in sgRNA detection together with an expected increase in detectable anti-S and anti-N IgGs was also verified in these samples. The data clearly demonstrate that a negative Ag-RDT sample is less likely to harbor infectious SARS-CoV-2 and, consequently, has a lower transmissible potential.

Frequency distribution of HCV resistance-associated variants in infected patients treated with direct-acting antivirals.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a global public health problem. Second-generation direct-acting antivirals targeting non-structural regions on the viral genome are the cornerstone for treatment of chronic infection. However, resistance-associated variants (RAVs) have been reported to be associated with therapeutic failure. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of variants, including RAVs, in the NS3, NS5A and NS5B regions at baseline in Brazilian patients with chronic hepatitis C with HCV genotypes 1a, 1b and 3a. METHODS: Serum samples from 13 patients were used to obtain viral RNA. Massively parallel sequencing was performed using genotype-specific amplicons and a panel of Ampliseq technology for all genotypes. RESULTS: Several non-synonymous substitutions were detected at baseline for 11 responders and pre-/post-treatment for two non-responders. HCV genotype 3a was found to have significantly more non-synonymous substitutions than HCV genotype 1 in the NS3 and NS5A regions. Analyses were conducted using quantitative and qualitative inter- and intrapatient comparisons. Variants that confer resistance to the treatment used by the patients were found in both responders and non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: A wide frequency distribution of RAVs was found at baseline, and this did not interfere with the achievement of a sustained response. Evaluation of the presence of RAVs requires additional study in order to determine clinical relevance.

Performance of an alternative RT-PCR procedure using residual sample from the Panbio™ Ag COVID-19 test.

INTRODUCTION: In the current standard of care (SoC) RT-PCR method for COVID-19, the patient's swab was extracted in viral transport media (VTM). For the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the patient swab is flushed out in extraction buffer, of which a small fraction is used for testing, leaving more than half the sample unused. This study was designed to show that RT-PCR results from the residual sample of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (called Novel RT-PCR) are not worse than the SoC RT-PCR result. METHODS: The study was performed using (1) dilution series of five patient samples, and (2) 413 patient samples comparing SOC versus Novel RT-PCR results. RESULTS: For the dilution series samples, all tested positive by both methods. The bias between Ct values of Novel RT-PCR and SoC RT-PCR did not exceed 3.00 Ct using primers N1 and N2. A total of 413 COVID symptomatic patients seeking COVID testing were tested, of which 89 patients tested positive and 324 tested negative with SoC RT-PCR. In 324 patients who tested negative with SoC RT-PCR, 323 tested negative with Novel RT-PCR, and one (1) tested positive. Out of 89 who tested positive with SoC RT-PCR, 80 tested positive with the Novel RT-PCR, and nine patients showed a negative test result. The Overall Percent Agreement for the 413 valid patient sample pairs was 97.5 [95% CI 97 to 98]. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that the performance of the Novel RT-PCR method is acceptable compared to the SoC RT-PCR method and can be a useful tool to perform RT-PCR without the need for new swab collections.

COVID-19 diagnosis by RT-qPCR in alternative specimens.

BACKGROUND: The high demand for adequate material for the gold standard reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-based diagnosis imposed by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, combined with the inherent contamination risks for healthcare workers during nasopharyngeal swab (NP) sample collection and the discomfort it causes patients, brought the need to identify alternative specimens suitable for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to compare saliva and gingival fluid swabs to NP swabs as specimens for RT-qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. METHODS: We compared gingival fluid swabs (n = 158) and saliva (n = 207) to the rayon-tipped NP swabs obtained from mild-symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects as specimens for RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection. FINDINGS: When compared to NP swabs, gingival fluid swabs had a concordance rate of 15.4% among positive samples, zero among inconclusive, and 100% among negative ones. For saliva samples, the concordance rate was 67.6% among positive samples, 42.9% among inconclusive, and 96.8% among negative ones. However, the concordance rate between saliva and NP swabs was higher (96.9%) within samples with lower cycle threshold (Ct) values (Ct > 10 ≤ 25). MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that whereas gingival fluid swabs are not substitutes for NP swabs, saliva might be considered whenever NP swabs are not available or recommended.

COVID-19 diagnosis by RT-qPCR in alternative specimens

BACKGROUND The high demand for adequate material for the gold standard reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-based diagnosis imposed by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, combined with the inherent contamination risks for healthcare workers during nasopharyngeal swab (NP) sample collection and the discomfort it causes patients, brought the need to identify alternative specimens suitable for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). OBJECTIVES The aim of this work was to compare saliva and gingival fluid swabs to NP swabs as specimens for RT-qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. METHODS We compared gingival fluid swabs (n = 158) and saliva (n = 207) to the rayon-tipped NP swabs obtained from mild-symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects as specimens for RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection. FINDINGS When compared to NP swabs, gingival fluid swabs had a concordance rate of 15.4% among positive samples, zero among inconclusive, and 100% among negative ones. For saliva samples, the concordance rate was 67.6% among positive samples, 42.9% among inconclusive, and 96.8% among negative ones. However, the concordance rate between saliva and NP swabs was higher (96.9%) within samples with lower cycle threshold (Ct) values (Ct > 10 ≤ 25). MAIN CONCLUSIONS Our data suggests that whereas gingival fluid swabs are not substitutes for NP swabs, saliva might be considered whenever NP swabs are not available or recommended.

Performance of an alternative RT-PCR procedure using residual sample from the Panbio™ Ag COVID-19 test

ABSTRACT Introduction: In the current standard of care (SoC) RT-PCR method for COVID-19, the patient's swab was extracted in viral transport media (VTM). For the PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the patient swab is flushed out in extraction buffer, of which a small fraction is used for testing, leaving more than half the sample unused. This study was designed to show that RT-PCR results from the residual sample of the PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (called Novel RT-PCR) are not worse than the SoC RT-PCR result. Methods: The study was performed using (1) dilution series of five patient samples, and (2) 413 patient samples comparing SOC versus Novel RT-PCR results. Results: For the dilution series samples, all tested positive by both methods. The bias between Ct values of Novel RT-PCR and SoC RT-PCR did not exceed 3.00 Ct using primers N1 and N2. A total of 413 COVID symptomatic patients seeking COVID testing were tested, of which 89 patients tested positive and 324 tested negative with SoC RT-PCR. In 324 patients who tested negative with SoC RT-PCR, 323 tested negative with Novel RT-PCR, and one (1) tested positive. Out of 89 who tested positive with SoC RT-PCR, 80 tested positive with the Novel RT-PCR, and nine patients showed a negative test result. The Overall Percent Agreement for the 413 valid patient sample pairs was 97.5 [95% CI 97 to 98]. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that the performance of the Novel RT-PCR method is acceptable compared to the SoC RT-PCR method and can be a useful tool to perform RTPCR without the need for new swab collections.