We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Distinguishing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Persistence and Reinfection: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
- Authors
Turbett, Sarah E; Tomkins-Tinch, Christopher H; Anahtar, Melis N; Dugdale, Caitlin M; Hyle, Emily P; Shenoy, Erica S; Shaw, Bennett; Egbuonu, Kenechukwu; Bowman, Kathryn A; Zachary, Kimon C; Adams, Gordon C; Hooper, David C; Ryan, Edward T; LaRocque, Regina C; Bassett, Ingrid V; Triant, Virginia A; Siddle, Katherine J; Rosenberg, Eric; Sabeti, Pardis C; Schaffner, Stephen F
- Abstract
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection is poorly understood, partly because few studies have systematically applied genomic analysis to distinguish reinfection from persistent RNA detection related to initial infection. We aimed to evaluate the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and persistent RNA detection using independent genomic, clinical, and laboratory assessments. Methods All individuals at a large academic medical center who underwent a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) ≥45 days after an initial positive test, with both tests between 14 March and 30 December 2020, were analyzed for potential reinfection. Inclusion criteria required having ≥2 positive NAATs collected ≥45 days apart with a cycle threshold (Ct) value <35 at repeat testing. For each included subject, likelihood of reinfection was assessed by viral genomic analysis of all available specimens with a Ct value <35, structured Ct trajectory criteria, and case-by-case review by infectious diseases physicians. Results Among 1569 individuals with repeat SARS-CoV-2 testing ≥45 days after an initial positive NAAT, 65 (4%) met cohort inclusion criteria. Viral genomic analysis characterized mutations present and was successful for 14/65 (22%) subjects. Six subjects had genomically supported reinfection, and 8 subjects had genomically supported persistent RNA detection. Compared to viral genomic analysis, clinical and laboratory assessments correctly distinguished reinfection from persistent RNA detection in 12/14 (86%) subjects but missed 2/6 (33%) genomically supported reinfections. Conclusions Despite good overall concordance with viral genomic analysis, clinical and Ct value-based assessments failed to identify 33% of genomically supported reinfections. Scaling-up genomic analysis for clinical use would improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections.
- Subjects
SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; ACADEMIC medical centers; REINFECTION; RNA; RETROSPECTIVE studies; ACQUISITION of data; RISK assessment; GENOMES; MEDICAL records; DESCRIPTIVE statistics; GENETIC techniques; LONGITUDINAL method; NUCLEIC acid amplification techniques
- Publication
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2023, Vol 76, Issue 5, p850
- ISSN
1058-4838
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1093/cid/ciac830