Back to Search Start Over

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
Source :
Clinical Infectious Diseases; Mar2023, Vol. 76 Issue 5, p850-860, 11p
Publication Year :
2023

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
10584838
Volume :
76
Issue :
5
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
162294508
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac830