In the age of a pandemic, such as the ongoing one caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), the world faces a limited supply of tests, personal protective equipment, and factories and supply chains are struggling to meet the growing demands. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of specimen pooling for testing of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, to determine whether costs and resource savings could be achieved without impacting the sensitivity of the testing. Ten previously tested nasopharyngeal and throat swab specimens by real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), were pooled for testing, containing either one or two known positive specimens of varying viral concentrations. Specimen pooling did not affect the sensitivity of detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 when the PCR cycle threshold (Ct) of original specimen was lower than 35. In specimens with low viral load (Ct > 35), 2 of 15 pools (13.3%) were false negative. Pooling specimens to test for Coronavirus Disease 2019 infection in low prevalence (≤1%) areas or in low risk populations can dramatically decrease the resource burden on laboratory operations by up to 80%. This paves the way for large‐scale population screening, allowing for assured policy decisions by governmental bodies to ease lockdown restrictions in areas with a low incidence of infection, or with lower‐risk populations.

Background: The presence of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) is an indicator of protective immunity for most viral infections. A newly developed surrogate viral neutralization assay (sVNT) offers the ability to detect total receptor binding domain-targeting NAbs in an isotype-independent manner, increasing the test sensitivity. Thus, specimens with low IgM/ IgG antibody levels showed strong neutralization activity in sVNT. Methods: This study aimed to measure the %inhibition of NAbs measured by sVNT in PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. The sensitivity of sVNT for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its kinetics were determined. Results: Ninety-seven patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in this study. Majority of the patients were 21–40 years old (67%) and 63% had mild symptoms. The sensitivity of sVNT for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 99% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.4–100%) and the specificity was 100% (95% CI 98.3–100%). The negative predictive value of sVNT from the samples collected before and after 7 days of symptom onset was 99.5% (95% CI 97.4–100%) and 100% (95% CI 93.8–100%), respectively. The level of inhibition at days 8–14 were significantly higher than days 0–7 (p<0.001). The median %inhibition values by severity of COVID-19 symptoms were 79.9% (interquartile range (IQR) 49.7–91.8%); 89.0% (IQR 71.2–92.4%); and 86.6% (IQR 69.5–92.8%), for mild, moderate and severe/critical symptoms respectively. The median level of sVNT %inhibition of severe was significantly higher than the mild group (p = 0.05). Conclusion: The sVNT is a practical and robust serological test for SARS-CoV-2 infection and does not require specialized biosafety containment. It can be used clinically to aid diagnosis in both early and late infection especially in cases when the real-time RT-PCR results in weakly negative or weakly positive, and to determine the protective immune response from SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients.

Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) is commonly used in national immunization programs. However, the immune response significantly declines within a few months. Our study assessed the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 after receiving booster shots of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 among health care workers who previously received CoronaVac as their primary immunization. Fifty-six participants who received ChAdOx1 and forty-two participants who received BNT162b2 were enrolled into this study, which evaluated immune responses, including anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike total antibodies (Elecsys^®), surrogated viral neutralization test (sVNT) to ancestral strain (cPass™; GenScript), five variants of concern (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron) (Luminex; multiplex sVNT) and the ELISpot with spike (S1 and S2) peptide pool against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain. The samples were analyzed at baseline, 4, and 12 weeks after primary immunization, as well as 4 and 12 weeks after receiving the booster. This study showed a significant increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike total antibodies, sVNT, and T-cell immune response after the booster, including against the Omicron variant. Immune responses rapidly decreased in the booster group at 12 weeks after booster but were still higher than post-primary vaccination. A fourth dose or a second booster should be recommended, particularly in health care workers.

Wastewater surveillance is considered a promising approach for COVID-19 surveillance in communities. In this study, we collected wastewater samples between November 2020 and February 2022 from twenty-three sites in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants for comparison to standard clinical sampling. A total of 215 wastewater samples were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time PCR with three targeted genes (N, E, and ORF1ab); 102 samples were positive (42.5%). The SARS-CoV-2 variants were determined by a multiplex PCR MassARRAY assay to distinguish four SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron. Multiple variants of Alpha–Delta and Delta–Omicron were detected in the wastewater samples in July 2021 and January 2022, respectively. These wastewater variant results mirrored the country data from clinical specimens deposited in GISAID. Our results demonstrated that wastewater surveillance using multiple signature mutation sites for SARS-CoV-2 variant detection is an appropriate strategy to monitor the presence of SARS-CoV-2 variants in the community at a low cost and with rapid turn-around time. However, it is essential to note that sequencing surveillance of wastewater samples should be considered complementary to whole genome sequencing of clinical samples to detect novel variants.

Etravirine(ETR) can be used for patients who have failed NNRTI-based regimen. In Thailand, ETR is approximately 45 times more expensive than rilpivirine(RPV). However, there are no data of RPV use in NNRTI failure. Therefore, we assessed the susceptibility and mutation patterns of first line NNRTI failure and the possibility of using RPV compared to ETV in patients who have failed efavirenz(EFV)- and nevirapine(NVP)-based regimens. Clinical samples with confirmed virological failure from EFV- or NVP-based regimens were retrospectively analyzed. Resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were interpreted by IAS-USA Drug Resistance Mutations. Susceptibility of ETR and RPV were interpreted by DUET, Monogram scoring system, and Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance Database. 1,279 and 528 patients failed EFV- and NVP-based regimens, respectively. Y181C was the most common NVP-associated RAM (54.3% vs. 14.7%, p<0.01). K103N was the most common EFV-associated RAM (56.5% vs. 19.1%, P<0.01). The results from all three scoring systems were concordant. 165(11.1%) and 161(10.9%) patients who failed NVP-based regimen were susceptible to ETR and RPV, respectively (p = 0.85). 195 (32.2%) and 191 (31.6%) patients who failed EFV-based regimen, were susceptible to ETR and RPV, respectively (p = 0.79). The susceptibility of ETV and RPV in EFV failure was significantly higher than NVP failure (p<0.01). The mutation patterns for ETR and RPV were similar but 32% and 11% of patients who failed EFV and NVP -based regimen, respectivly were susceptible to RPV. This finding suggests that RPV can be used as the alternative antiretroviral agent in patients who have failed EFV-based regimen.

The rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with high severity and transmutability adds further urgency for rapid and multiplex molecular testing to identify the variants. A nucleotide matrix-assisted laser-desorption-ionization time-of-flight mass spectrophotometry (MALDI-TOF MS)-based assay was developed (called point mutation array, PMA) to identify four major SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) including Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron (namely PMA-ABDO) and differentiate Omicron subvariant (namely PMA-Omicron). PMA-ABDO and PMA-Omicron consist of 24 and 28 mutation sites of the spike gene. Both PMA panels specifically identified VOCs with as low as 10 viral copies/µl. The panel has shown a 100% concordant with the Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) results testing on 256 clinical specimens with real-time PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values less than 26. It showed a higher sensitivity over NGS; 25/28 samples were positive by PMA but not NGS in the clinical samples with PCR Ct higher than 26. Due to the mass of nucleotide used to differentiate between wild-type and mutation strains, the co-infection or recombination of multiple variants can be determined by the PMA method. This method is flexible in adding a new primer set to identify a new emerging mutation site among the current circulating VOCs and the turnaround time is less than 8 h. However, the spike gene sequencing or NGS retains the advantage of detecting newly emerged variants.