Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers in Dutch hospitals after the 2020 first wave: a multicentre cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence and describe its determinants and associated symptoms among unvaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs) after the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: HCWs from 13 Dutch hospitals were screened for antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in June-July 2020 and after three months. Participants completed a retrospective questionnaire on determinants for occupational and community exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 experienced since January 2020. The seroprevalence was calculated per baseline characteristic and symptom at baseline and after follow-up. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for seropositivity were determined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2328 HCWs, 323 (13.9%) were seropositive at enrolment, 49 of whom (15%) reported no previous symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. During follow-up, only 1% of the tested participants seroconverted. Seroprevalence was higher in younger HCWs compared to the mid-age category (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.18). Nurses (aOR 2.21, 95% CI 1.34-3.64) and administrative staff (aOR 1.87, 95% CI 1.02-3.43) had a higher seroprevalence than physicians. The highest seroprevalence was observed in HCWs in the emergency department (ED) (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.10-2.91), the lowest in HCWs in the intensive, high, or medium care units (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.71). Chronic respiratory disease, smoking, and having a dog were independently associated with a lower seroprevalence, while HCWs with diabetes mellitus had a higher seroprevalence. In a multivariable model containing all self-reported symptoms since January 2020, altered smell and taste, fever, general malaise/fatigue, and muscle aches were positively associated with developing antibodies, while sore throat and chills were negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in unvaccinated HCWs of 13 Dutch hospitals was 14% in June-July 2020 and remained stable after three months. A higher seroprevalence was observed in the ED and among nurses, administrative and young staff, and those with diabetes mellitus, while a lower seroprevalence was found in HCWs in intensive, high, or medium care, and those with self-reported lung disease, smokers, and dog owners. A history of altered smell or taste, fever, muscle aches and fatigue were independently associated with the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in unvaccinated HCWs.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Air and on Surfaces in Rooms of Infected Nursing Home Residents.

There is an ongoing debate on airborne transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a risk factor for infection. In this study, the level of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces of SARS-CoV-2 infected nursing home residents was assessed to gain insight in potential transmission routes. During outbreaks, air samples were collected using three different active and one passive air sampling technique in rooms of infected patients. Oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) of the residents and dry surface swabs were collected. Additionally, longitudinal passive air samples were collected during a period of 4 months in common areas of the wards. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined using RT-qPCR, targeting the RdRp- and E-genes. OPS, samples of two active air samplers and surface swabs with Ct-value ≤35 were tested for the presence of infectious virus by cell culture. In total, 360 air and 319 surface samples from patient rooms and common areas were collected. In rooms of 10 residents with detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in OPS, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 93 of 184 collected environmental samples (50.5%) (lowest Ct 29.5), substantially more than in the rooms of residents with negative OPS on the day of environmental sampling (n = 2) (3.6%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was most frequently present in the larger particle size fractions [>4 µm 60% (6/10); 1-4 µm 50% (5/10); <1 µm 20% (2/10)] (Fischer exact test P = 0.076). The highest proportion of RNA-positive air samples on room level was found with a filtration-based sampler 80% (8/10) and the cyclone-based sampler 70% (7/10), and impingement-based sampler 50% (5/10). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 10 out of 12 (83%) passive air samples in patient rooms. Both high-touch and low-touch surfaces contained SARS-CoV-2 genome in rooms of residents with positive OPS [high 38% (21/55); low 50% (22/44)]. In one active air sample, infectious virus in vitro was detected. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 is frequently detected in air and on surfaces in the immediate surroundings of room-isolated COVID-19 patients, providing evidence of environmental contamination. The environmental contamination of SARS-CoV-2 and infectious aerosols confirm the potential for transmission via air up to several meters.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the omicron period: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performances of three commonly used antigen rapid diagnostic tests used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in the Omicron period in three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands, including 3600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex [Flowflex], MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST [CLINITEST]) to perform unsupervised at home. Diagnostic accuracies of each self-test were calculated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI, 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for CLINITEST. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. DISCUSSION: The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period were very low. Antigen rapid diagnostic test self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect a minority of infections at that point in time. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield, and individuals should be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.

SARS-CoV-2 Alpha-Variant Outbreak Amongst a Partially Vaccinated Long-Term Care Facility Population in The Netherlands-Phylogenetic Analysis and Infection Control Observations.

Despite extensive vaccination and booster programs, SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in long-term care facilities (LTCF) continue to occur. We retrospectively describe a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak amongst a partially vaccinated LTCF population in The Netherlands which occurred in March 2021. The facility comprised three floors functioning as separate wards. Nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR were obtained from residents and staff presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms and from all residents and staff during two point prevalence screenings (PPS). Samples meeting technical criteria were included for phylogenetic analysis. Positive SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR were obtained from 11 (18%) of 61 residents and 8 (7%) of 110 staff members between March 8 and March 25. Seven (37%) cases and five (63%) vaccinated cases were diagnosed through PPS. Cases were found on all wards. Phylogenetic analysis (n = 11) showed a maximum difference of four nucleotides between sequences on the outer branches of the tree, but identified two identical sequences on the root differing maximum two nucleotides from all other sequences, suggesting all did belong to the same cluster. Our results imply that PPS is useful in containing SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks amongst (vaccinated) LTCF populations, as an entire LTCF might behave as a single epidemiological unit and it is preferable to maximize the number of samples included for phylogenetic analysis.

Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population. METHODS: This large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference. RESULTS: Out of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests. CONCLUSIONS: The Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.

Diagnostic accuracy of covid-19 rapid antigen tests with unsupervised self-sampling in people with symptoms in the omicron period: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period. DESIGN: Prospective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING: Three public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing. INTERVENTIONS: Participants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard. RESULTS: During phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ2 test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population by three prevailing rapid antigen tests: cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are the most widely used point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since the accuracy may have altered by changes in SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, indications for testing, sampling and testing procedures, and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the performance of three prevailing SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we consecutively enrolled individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. In the first phase, participants underwent either BD-Veritor System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), or SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) testing with routine sampling procedures. In a subsequent phase, participants underwent SD-Biosensor testing with a less invasive sampling method (combined oropharyngeal-nasal [OP-N] swab). Diagnostic accuracies were assessed against molecular testing. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred fifty-five of 7005 participants (99%) with results from both an Ag-RDT and a molecular reference test were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities were 13% (188/1441) and 69% (129/188, 95% CI 62-75) for BD-Veritor, 8% (173/2056) and 69% (119/173, 61-76) for PanBio, and 12% (215/1769) and 74% (160/215, 68-80) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 10% (164/1689) and 75% (123/164, 68-81) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72-83% and 54-56%, respectively. Above a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities were 86% (125/146, 79-91) for BD-Veritor, 89% (108/121, 82-94) for PanBio, and 88% (160/182, 82-92) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 84% (118/141, 77-89) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Sixty-one per cent of false-negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median: 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90% tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: Overall sensitivities of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs were 69-75%, increasing to ≥86% above a viral load cut-off. The decreased sensitivity among asymptomatic participants and high positivity rate during follow-up in false-negative Ag-RDT participants emphasise the need for education of the public about the importance of re-testing after an initial negative Ag-RDT should symptoms develop. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and deep nasopharyngeal sampling was similar; adopting the more convenient sampling method might reduce the threshold for professional testing.

Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of nasal mid-turbinate self-testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) for persons with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the community. Self-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RDT, provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Participants visiting a municipal SARS-CoV-2 testing centre, received self-testing kits containing either the BD Veritor System (BD-RDT) or Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test (Roche-RDT). Oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the participants for quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) testing. As a proxy for contagiousness, viral culture was performed on a selection of qRT-PCR positive samples to determine the Ct-value at which the chance of a positive culture dropped below 0.5 (Ct-value cut-off). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing were compared to qRT-PCR with a Ct-value below the Ct value cut-off. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-test result were determined. RESULTS: A total of 3201 participants were included (BD-RDT n = 1595; Roche-RDT n = 1606). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared with the qRT-PCR results with a Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off were 78.4% (95% CI 73.2%-83.5%) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1%-99.7%), respectively. A higher age was independently associated with a false-negative self-testing result with an odds ratio of 1.024 (95% CI 1.003-1.044). CONCLUSIONS: Self-testing using currently available RDT has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure. DESIGN: Prospective cross sectional study. SETTING: Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness. RESULTS: Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness.

Evaluation of the test accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in symptomatic community dwelling individuals in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) is well suited for the diagnosis of clinically ill patients requiring treatment. Application for community testing of symptomatic individuals for disease control purposes however raises challenges. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests might offer an alternative, but quality evidence on their performance is limited. METHODS: We conducted an evaluation of the test accuracy of the 'BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2' (VRD) compared to qRT-PCR on combined nose/throat swabs obtained from symptomatic individuals at Municipal Health Service (MHS) COVID-19 test centers in the Netherlands. In part one of the study, with the primary objective to evaluate test sensitivity and specificity, all adults presenting at one MHS test center were eligible for inclusion. In part two, with the objective to evaluate test sensitivity stratified by Ct (cycle threshold)-value and time since symptom onset, adults who had a positive qRT-PCR obtained at a MHS test center were eligible. FINDINGS: In part one (n = 352) SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8%, overall specificity 100% (95%CI: 98·9%-100%) and sensitivity 94·1% (95%CI: 71·1%-100%). In part two (n = 123) the sensitivity was 78·9% (95%CI: 70·6%-85·7%) overall, 89·4% (95% CI: 79·4%-95·6%) for specimen obtained within seven days after symptom onset and 93% (95% CI: 86%-97.1%) for specimen with a Ct-value below 30. INTERPRETATION: The VRD is a promising diagnostic for COVID-19 testing of symptomatic community-dwelling individuals within seven days after symptom onset in context of disease control. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position within the testing landscape is needed.

Case report of a neonate with high viral SARSCoV-2 loads and long-term virus shedding.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has spread globally. Currently, literature of SARS-CoV-2 in neonates is scarce. We present a case of a neonate with a high viral load and prolonged virus shedding. METHODS: Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, treatment, laboratory data and follow-up information and the treatment of a neonate with COVID-19 were recorded. RESULTS: A 7-day-old boy was admitted to the hospital with fever, lethargy and apnoea. He was found SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive with an exceptionally high viral load in nasopharyngeal swab and stool. The father and two maternity nurses at home had detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA as well. Sequencing showed all strains belonged to the same cluster. The father was asymptomatic and the maternity nurses developed symptoms after visiting. In the mother, no SARS-CoV-2 RNA could be found. Six days after admission, the neonate was discharged after clinical improvement with oral antibiotics because of a possible pyelonephritis. Monitoring the course of this infection showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detectable in the nasopharynx until day 19 and in stool until day 42 after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: This case shows that neonates can have a high viral load of SARS-CoV-2 and can shed the virus for over one month in stool. Despite the high viral load in the neonate, the mother and a sibling did not get infected.

Clinical performance and sample freeze-thaw stability of the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and lower respiratory specimens.

INTRODUCTION: Studies describing the performance characteristics of the cobas®6800 system for SARS-CoV-2 detection in deep respiratory specimens and freeze-thaw stability are limited. The current study compares the clinical performance of the automated SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 system to a lab-developed assay (LDA) and the cobas impact of freeze-thawing combined with lysis buffer. METHODS: Both retrospective and prospectively selected deep respiratory samples and oro- and nasopharyngeal samples in either E-swab® or GLY- were tested using the SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 System and compared to a lab developed assay. Additonally, SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability was assessed after one freeze-thaw cycle with or without lysis buffer. RESULTS: In total, 221 (58.3 %) oro- and nasopharyngeal swabs, 131 (34.6 %) deep respiratory specimens, and n = 25 (6.6 %) swabs of unknown origin were included to study clinical performance. Only 4 samples gave discrepant results, all being positive in the LDA and not the cobas®6800 system. For stability testing, 66 samples without and 110 with lysis buffer were included. No clinically significant difference was found in test results after one freeze-thaw cycle and addition of lysis buffer. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results as the LDA in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and deep respiratory specimens. Moreover, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results before and after a freeze-thaw cycle, with better preservation of low viral loads in lysis buffer.

COVID-19 in health-care workers in three hospitals in the south of the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: 10 days after the first reported case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the Netherlands (on Feb 27, 2020), 55 (4%) of 1497 health-care workers in nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We aimed to gain insight in possible sources of infection in health-care workers. METHODS: We did a cross-sectional study at three of the nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands. We screened health-care workers at the participating hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on clinical symptoms (fever or mild respiratory symptoms) in the 10 days before screening. We obtained epidemiological data through structured interviews with health-care workers and combined this information with data from whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples taken from health-care workers and patients. We did an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and patients. FINDINGS: Between March 2 and March 12, 2020, 1796 (15%) of 12 022 health-care workers were screened, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete and near-complete genome sequences from 50 health-care workers and ten patients. Most sequences were grouped in three clusters, with two clusters showing local circulation within the region. The noted patterns were consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community-acquired infections and local amplification in the community. INTERPRETATION: Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, our data do not support widespread nosocomial transmission as the source of infection in patients or health-care workers. FUNDING: EU Horizon 2020 (RECoVer, VEO, and the European Joint Programme One Health METASTAVA), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic.

Importance: On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. Objective: To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Results: Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years]; 15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance: Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently.

Performance evaluation of the Panther Fusion® respiratory tract panel.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract infections are among the most common infections during winter season. Rapid diagnostics is required for clinical decision making regarding isolation of patients and appropriate therapy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Panther Fusion® respiratory panel using published laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays (LDT). STUDY DESIGN: Analytical sensitivity of Panther Fusion® Flu A/B/RSV was assessed by testing dilutions of cell culture isolates. Clinical performance assessment included the complete Panther Fusion® respiratory panel (Flu-A/B/RSV, PIV 1-4 and AdV/hMPV/RV) and consisted of a retrospective and a prospective study-arm. The retrospective evaluation included 201, stored (-80 °C) samples collected between February 2006 and January 2017. Prospective evaluation was performed on 1045 unselected pretreated respiratory tract samples from patients presented to our hospital between November 2017 and May 2018. RESULTS: Analytical sensitivity was generally slightly lower for the Panther Fusion® assays. Clinical specificity and sensitivity was between 96 %-100 % and 71.9 %-100 %, respectively. Discrepant results were found in 146 samples of which 88 samples tested LDT positive / Panther Fusion® negative and 58 samples were LDT negative / Panther Fusion® positive. A total of ten discrepant samples with Ct-values <30 were sequenced to confirm the presence of 7 RV-C not-detected by LDT and 1 RV-A and 2 ADV-2 not detected by Panther Fusion®. CONCLUSIONS: The Panther Fusion® provides a random-access system with continuous loading and much shorter sample-to-answer times compared to LDT, albeit with a slightly less clinical sensitivity compared to the LDT.

Zika Virus Outbreak on Curaçao and Bonaire, a Report Based on Laboratory Diagnostics Data.

Background: Zika virus (ZIKV) emerged in May 2015 in Brazil, from which it spread to many other countries in Latin America. Cases of ZIKV infection were eventually also reported in Curaçao (January 2016) and Bonaire (February 2016). Methods: In the period of 16 December 2015 until 26 April 2017, serum, EDTA-plasma or urine samples were taken at Medical Laboratory Services (MLS) from patients on Curaçao and tested in qRT-PCR at the Erasmus Medical Centre (EMC) in the Netherlands. Between 17 October 2016 until 26 April 2017 all samples of suspected ZIKV-patients collected on Curaçao, as well as on Bonaire, were tested at MLS. Paired urine and/or serum samples from patients were analyzed for ZIKV shedding kinetics, and compared in terms of sensitivity for ZIKV RNA detection. Furthermore, the age and gender of patients were used to determine ZIKV incidence rates, and their geozone location to determine the spatial distribution of ZIKV cases. Results: In total, 781 patients of 2820 tested individuals were found qRT-PCR-positive for ZIKV on Curaçao. The first two ZIKV cases were diagnosed in December 2015. A total of 112 patients of 382 individuals tested qRT-PCR-positive for ZIKV on Bonaire. For both islands, the peak number of absolute cases occurred in November 2016, with 247 qRT-PCR confirmed cases on Curaçao and 66 qRT-PCR-positive cases on Bonaire. Overall, a higher proportion of women than men was diagnosed with ZIKV on both islands, as well as mostly individuals in the age category of 25-54 years old. Furthermore, ZIKV cases were mostly clustered in the east of the island, in Willemstad. Conclusions: ZIKV cases confirmed by qRT-PCR indicate that the virus was circulating on Curaçao between at least December 2015 and March 2017, and on Bonaire between at least October 2016 and February 2017, with peak cases occurring in November 2016. The lack of preparedness of Curaçao for the ZIKV outbreak was compensated by shipping all samples to the EMC for diagnostic testing; however, both islands will need to put the right infrastructure in place to enable a rapid response to an outbreak of any new emergent virus in the future.

Hepatitis E Virus Shows More Genomic Alterations in Cell Culture than In Vivo.

Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) mutations following ribavirin treatment have been associated with treatment non-response and viral persistence, but spontaneous occurring genomic variations have been less well characterized. We here set out to study the HEV genome composition in 2 patient sample types and 2 infection models. Near full HEV genome Sanger sequences of serum- and feces-derived HEV from two chronic HEV genotype 3 (gt3) patients were obtained. In addition, viruses were sequenced after in vitro or in vivo expansion on A549 cells or a humanized mouse model, respectively. We show that HEV acquired 19 nucleotide mutations, of which 7 nonsynonymous amino acids changes located in Open Reading Frame 1 (ORF1), ORF2, and ORF3 coding regions, after prolonged in vitro culture. In vivo passage resulted in selection of 8 nucleotide mutations with 2 altered amino acids in the X domain and Poly-proline region of ORF1. Intra-patient comparison of feces- and serum-derived HEV gt3 of two patients showed 7 and 2 nucleotide mutations with 2 and 0 amino acid changes, respectively. Overall, the number of genomic alterations was up to 1.25× per 1000 nucleotides or amino acids in in vivo samples, and up to 2.84× after in vitro expansion of the same clinical HEV strain. In vitro replication of a clinical HEV strain is therefore associated with more mutations, compared to the minor HEV genomic alterations seen after passage of the same strain in an immune deficient humanized mouse; as well as in feces and blood of 2 immunosuppressed chronically infected HEV patients. These data suggest that HEV infected humanized mice more closely reflect the HEV biology seen in solid organ transplant recipients.

Whole-Blood Testing for Diagnosis of Acute Zika Virus Infections in Routine Diagnostic Setting.

We evaluated the benefit of whole blood versus plasma to detect acute Zika virus infections. Comparison of Zika virus quantitative reverse transcription PCR results in single timepoint whole blood-plasma pairs from 227 patients with suspected Zika virus infection resulted in confirmation of 8 additional patients with Zika virus infection.