Utsav Pandey

Bio: Utsav Pandey is an academic researcher from Children's Hospital Los Angeles. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Genome. The author has an hindex of 12, co-authored 25 publications receiving 321 citations. Previous affiliations of Utsav Pandey include Pennsylvania State University & New York Medical College.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test.

Abstract: Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the primary means of identifying acute infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Accurate and fast test results may permit more efficient use of protective and isolation resources and allow rapid therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test, a rapid, automated molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity and specificity/interference were assessed with infectious SARS-CoV-2; other infectious coronavirus species, including SARS-CoV; and 85 nasopharyngeal swab specimens positive for other respiratory viruses, including endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs). Clinical performance was assessed using 483 remnant upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens previously analyzed by standard-of-care (SOC) NAATs. The limit of detection of the Xpert test was 0.01 PFU/ml. Other hCoVs, including Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, were not detected by the Xpert test. SARS-CoV, a closely related species in the subgenus Sarbecovirus, was detected by a broad-range target (E) but was distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2-specific N2 target). Compared to SOC NAATs, the positive agreement of the Xpert test was 219/220 (99.5%), and the negative agreement was 250/261 (95.8%). A third tie-breaker NAAT resolved all but three of the discordant results in favor the Xpert test. The Xpert test provided sensitive and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a variety of upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens. The high sensitivity and short time to results of approximately 45 min may impact patient management.

Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing viral variants in children and young adults with impaired humoral immunity

Abstract: Summary Background There is increasing concern that persistent infection of SARS-CoV-2 within immunocompromised hosts could serve as a reservoir for mutation accumulation and subsequent emergence of novel strains with the potential to evade immune responses. Methods We describe three patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who were persistently positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Viral viability from longitudinally-collected specimens was assessed. Whole-genome sequencing and serological studies were performed to measure viral evolution and evidence of immune escape. Findings We found compelling evidence of ongoing replication and infectivity for up to 162 days from initial positive by subgenomic RNA, single-stranded RNA, and viral culture analysis. Our results reveal a broad spectrum of infectivity, host immune responses, and accumulation of mutations, some with the potential for immune escape. Interpretation Our results highlight the need to reassess infection control precautions in the management and care of immunocompromised patients. Routine surveillance of mutations and evaluation of their potential impact on viral transmission and immune escape should be considered. Funding The work was partially funded by The Saban Research Institute at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles intramural support for COVID-19 Directed Research (X.G. and J.D.B.), the Johns Hopkins Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance HHSN272201400007C (A.P.), NIH/NIAID R01AI127877 (S.D.B.), NIH/NIAID R01AI130398 (S.D.B.), NIH 1U54CA260517 (S.D.B.), an endowment to S.D.B. from the Crown Family Foundation, an Early Postdoc.Mobility Fellowship Stipend to O.F.W. from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), and a Coulter COVID-19 Rapid Response Award to S.D.B. L.G. is a SHARE Research Fellow in Pediatric Hematology-Oncology.

High Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Genetic Variation and D614G Mutation in Pediatric Patients With COVID-19

Abstract: Background: The full spectrum of the disease phenotype and viral genotype of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have yet to be thoroughly explored in children. Here, we analyze the relationships between viral genetic variants and clinical characteristics in children. Methods: Whole-genome sequencing was performed on respiratory specimens collected for all SARS-CoV-2-positive children (n = 141) between March 13 and June 16, 2020. Viral genetic variations across the SARS-CoV-2 genome were identified and investigated to evaluate genomic correlates of disease severity. Results: Higher viral load was detected in symptomatic patients (P = .0007) and in children <5 years old (P = .0004). Genomic analysis revealed a mean pairwise difference of 10.8 single nucleotide variants (SNVs), and the majority (55.4%) of SNVs led to an amino acid change in the viral proteins. The D614G mutation in the spike protein was present in 99.3% of the isolates. The calculated viral mutational rate of 22.2 substitutions/year contrasts the 13.5 substitutions/year observed in California isolates without the D614G mutation. Phylogenetic clade 20C was associated with severe cases of COVID-19 (odds ratio, 6.95;P = .0467). Epidemiological investigation revealed major representation of 3 of 5 major Nextstrain clades (20A, 20B, and 20C) consistent with multiple introductions of SARS-CoV-2 in Southern California. Conclusions: Genomic evaluation demonstrated greater than expected genetic diversity, presence of the D614G mutation, increased mutation rate, and evidence of multiple introductions of SARS-CoV-2 into Southern California. Our findings suggest a possible association of phylogenetic clade 20C with severe disease, but small sample size precludes a definitive conclusion. Our study warrants larger and multi-institutional genomic evaluation and has implications for infection control practices.

Genotypic and phenotypic diversity of herpes simplex virus 2 within the infected neonatal population

Abstract: More than 14,000 neonates are infected with herpes simplex virus (HSV) annually. Approximately half display manifestations limited to the skin, eyes, or mouth (SEM disease). The rest develop invasive infections that spread to the central nervous system (CNS disease or encephalitis) or throughout the infected neonate (disseminated disease). Invasive HSV disease is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, but the viral and host factors that predispose neonates to these forms are unknown. To define viral diversity within the infected neonatal population, we evaluated 10 HSV-2 isolates from newborns with a range of clinical presentations. To assess viral fitness independently of host immune factors, we measured viral growth characteristics in cultured cells and found diverse in vitro phenotypes. Isolates from neonates with CNS disease were associated with larger plaque size and enhanced spread, with the isolates from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) exhibiting the most robust growth. We sequenced complete viral genomes of all 10 neonatal viruses, providing new insights into HSV-2 genomic diversity in this clinical setting. We found extensive interhost and intrahost genomic diversity throughout the viral genome, including amino acid differences in more than 90% of the viral proteome. The genes encoding glycoprotein G (gG; US4), glycoprotein I (gI; US7), and glycoprotein K (gK; UL53) and viral proteins UL8, UL20, UL24, and US2 contained variants that were found in association with CNS isolates. Many of these viral proteins are known to contribute to cell spread and neurovirulence in mouse models of CNS disease. This report represents the first application of comparative pathogen genomics to neonatal HSV disease.IMPORTANCE Herpes simplex virus (HSV) causes invasive disease in half of infected neonates, resulting in significant mortality and permanent cognitive morbidity. The factors that contribute to invasive disease are not understood. This study revealed diversity among HSV isolates from infected neonates and detected the first associations between viral genetic variations and clinical disease manifestations. We found that viruses isolated from newborns with encephalitis showed enhanced spread in culture. These viruses contained protein-coding variations not found in viruses causing noninvasive disease. Many of these variations were found in proteins known to impact neurovirulence and viral spread between cells. This work advances our understanding of HSV diversity in the neonatal population and how it may impact disease outcome.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract: Background Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. Main results Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19. Antigen tests Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. Authors' conclusions Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS‐CoV‐2

Abstract: Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. Search methods We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. Authors' conclusions The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests.

Abstract: During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, design, development, validation, verification and implementation of diagnostic tests were actively addressed by a large number of diagnostic test manufacturers. Hundreds of molecular tests and immunoassays were rapidly developed, albeit many still await clinical validation and formal approval. In this Review, we summarize the crucial role of diagnostic tests during the first global wave of COVID-19. We explore the technical and implementation problems encountered during this early phase in the pandemic, and try to define future directions for the progressive and better use of (syndromic) diagnostics during a possible resurgence of COVID-19 in future global waves or regional outbreaks. Continuous global improvement in diagnostic test preparedness is essential for more rapid detection of patients, possibly at the point of care, and for optimized prevention and treatment, in both industrialized countries and low-resource settings.