Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Test Results Among Patients Who Recovered From COVID-19 With Prior Negative Results.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liotti FM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7662488 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Test Results Among Patients Who Recovered From COVID-19 With Prior Negative Results.
Liotti Flora Marzia FM Menchinelli Giulia G Marchetti Simona S Posteraro Brunella B Landi Francesco F Sanguinetti Maurizio M Cattani Paola P
JAMA internal medicine 20210501 5
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7474148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Managing recovered COVID-19 patients with recurrent-positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test results is challenging. We performed a population-based observational study to characterize the viral RNA level and serum antibody responses in recurrent-positive patients and evaluate their viral transmission risk. Of 479 recovered COVID-19 patients, 93 (19%) recurrent-positive patients were identified, characterized by younger age, with a median discharge-to-recurrent-positive length of 8 days. After readmission, recurrent-positive patients exhibited mild (28%) or absent (72%) symptoms, with no disease progression. The viral RNA level in recurrent-positive patients ranged from 1.8 to 5.7 log10 copies/mL (median: 3.2), which was significantly lower than the corresponding values at disease onset. There are generally no significant differences in antibody levels between recurrent-positive and non-recurrent-positive patients, or in recurrent-positive patients over time (before, during, or after recurrent-positive detection). Virus isolation of nine representative specimens returned negative results. Whole genome sequencing of six specimens yielded only genomic fragments. 96 close contacts and 1,200 candidate contacts of 23 recurrent-positive patients showed no clinical symptoms; their viral RNA (1,296/1,296) and antibody (20/20) tests were negative. After full recovery (no longer/never recurrent-positive), 60% (98/162) patients had neutralizing antibody titers of ≥1:32. Our findings suggested that an intermittent, non-stable excretion of low-level viral RNA may result in recurrent-positive occurrence, rather than re-infection. Recurrent-positive patients pose a low transmission risk, a relatively relaxed management of recovered COVID-19 patients is recommended.
| S-EPMC7655076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Test-negative designs (TNDs) are used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE). Protection from infection-induced immunity may confound the association between case and vaccination status, but collecting reliable infection history can be challenging. If vaccinated individuals have less infection-induced protection than unvaccinated individuals, failure to account for infection history could underestimate VE, though the bias is not well understood. We simulated individual-level SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination histories and a TND. VE against symptomatic infection and VE against severe disease estimates unadjusted for infection history underestimated VE compared to estimates adjusted for infection history, and unadjusted estimates were more likely to be below 0%, which could lead to an incorrect interpretation that COVID-19 vaccines are harmful. TNDs assessing VE immediately following vaccine rollout introduced the largest bias and potential for negative VE against symptomatic infection. Despite the potential for bias, VE estimates from TNDs without prior infection information are useful because underestimation is rarely more than 8 percentage points.
| S-EPMC11579392 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8690021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although Thailand has been fairly effective at controlling the spread of COVID-19, continued disease surveillance and information on antibody response in recovered patients and their close contacts remain necessary in the absence of approved vaccines and antivirals. Here, we examined 217 recovered COVID-19 patients to assess their viral RNA shedding and residual antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. We also evaluated antibodies in blood samples from 308 close contacts of recovered COVID-19 patients. We found that viral RNA remained detectable in 6.6% of recovered COVID-19 cases and up to 105 days. IgM, IgG, and IgA antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 13.8%, 88.5%, and 83.4% of the recovered cases 4-12 weeks after disease onset, respectively. Higher levels of antibodies detected were associated with severe illness patients experienced while hospitalized. Fifteen of the 308 contacts (4.9%) of COVID-19 cases tested positive for IgG antibodies, suggesting probable exposure. Viral clearance and the pattern of antibody responses in infected individuals are both crucial for effectively combating SARS-CoV-2. Our study provides additional information on the natural history of this newly emerging disease related to both natural host defenses and antibody duration.
| S-EPMC7595404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently, the recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in recovered COVID-19 patients is receiving more attention. Herein we report a cohort study on the follow-up of 182 recovered patients under medical isolation observation. Twenty (10.99%) patients out of the 182 were detected to be SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive (re-positives), although none showed any clinical symptomatic recurrence, indicating that COVID-19 responds well to treatment. Patients aged under 18 years had higher re-positive rates than average, and none of the severely ill patients re-tested positive. There were no significant differences in sex between re-positives and non-re-positives. Notably, most of the re-positives turned negative in the following tests, and all of them carried antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. This indicates that they might not be infectious, although it is still important to perform regular SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing and follow-up for assessment of infectivity. The findings of this study provide information for improving the management of recovered patients, and for differentiating the follow-up of recovered patients with different risk levels.
| S-EPMC7368008 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsIn 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.
| S-EPMC9714718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Food and Drug Administration's Biologics Effectiveness and Safety Initiative conducts active surveillance to protect public health during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study evaluated performance of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis code U07.1 in identifying COVID-19 cases in claims compared with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification test results in linked electronic health records (EHRs). Care episodes in three populations were defined using COVID-19-related diagnoses (population 1), SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test procedures (population 2), and all-cause hospitalizations (population 3) in two linked claims-EHR databases: IBM® MarketScan® Explorys® Claims-EMR Data Set (commercial) and OneFlorida Data Trust linked Medicaid-EHR. Positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Respectively, populations 1, 2, and 3 included 26,686, 26,095, and 2,564 episodes (commercial) and 29,117, 23,412, and 9,629 episodes (Florida Medicaid). The positive predictive value was >80% and the negative predictive value was >95% in each population, with the highest positive predictive value in population 3 (commercial: 91.9%; Medicaid: 93.1%). Findings did not vary substantially by patient age. Positive predictive values in populations 1 and 2 fluctuated during April-June 2020. They then stabilized in the commercial but not the Medicaid population. Negative predictive values were consistent over time in all populations and databases. Our findings indicate that U07.1 has high performance in identifying COVID-19 cases and noncases in claims databases. Performance may vary across populations and periods.
| S-EPMC9387790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Identifying patients at increased risk for severe COVID-19 is of high priority during the pandemic as it could affect clinical management and shape public health guidelines. In this study we assessed whether a second PCR test conducted 2-7 days after a SARS-CoV-2 positive test could identify patients at risk for severe illness. Analysis of a nationwide electronic health records data of 1683 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals indicated that a second negative PCR test result was associated with lower risk for severe illness compared to a positive result. This association was seen across different age groups and clinical settings. More importantly, it was not limited to recovering patients but also observed in patients who still had evidence of COVID-19 as determined by a subsequent positive PCR test. Our study suggests that an early second PCR test may be used as a supportive risk-assessment tool to improve disease management and patient care.
| S-EPMC8516879 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7518948 | biostudies-literature