Search

BackgroundInvestigations of the natural viral interference effect between rhinovirus (RV) and influenza virus (IV) were conducted in temperate regions. We conducted an epidemiological study in Hong Kong, a major epicentre of influenza virus in the sub-tropical region. RV is the most prevalent respiratory virus year-round and causes asymptomatic to mild symptoms while IV infection exerts a great burden of public health. We aimed to examine the correlation of RV prevalence against IV activity.MethodsNasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA) collected from patients hospitalized in the regional hospitals from 2015 to 2019 were examined for the presence of respiratory viruses. The correlation of the monthly prevalence between all pairs of virus infection, the co-infection rate and the temporal interference of RV and IV were tested. The viral interference was validatedin vitroby conducting sequential RV and IV infection in the well-differentiated primary human airway epithelial cells.FindingsA total of 112,926 NPA were evaluated, and the Enterovirus/RV was the most prevalent respiratory virus detected. The negative correlation between EV/RV and IVs prevalence was independent of age and meteorological factors. Co-infection of EV/RV and IV was significantly less when compared with other virus pairs. Prior exposure to RV inhibited the replication of influenza A, B and oseltamivir-resistance stainin vitroand the inhibition is replication dependent.InterpretationEpidemiological surveillance and the sequential infectionin vitrosuggested viral interference between EV/RV and IV operated at the population, individual and cellular levels.FundingThis study was supported by the General Research Fund (Ref: 24107017 and 14103119 to RWYC), Health and Medical Research Fund (Ref: COVID190112 to RWYC) and the Chinese University Direct Grant for Research (Ref: 2019.073 to RWYC).

Highlights • Many SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests are available for patient use with incomplete evidence as to their diagnostic accuracy. • Current publications on SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic accuracy have imperfect study design, heterogeneous methods, and a high risk for bias., Summary Objectives To assess the methodologies used in the estimation of diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and other nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and to evaluate the quality and reliability of the studies employing those methods. Methods We conducted a systematic search of English-language articles published December 31, 2019-June 19, 2020. Studies of any design that performed tests on ≥10 patients and reported or inferred correlative statistics were included. Studies were evaluated using elements of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) guidelines. Results We conducted a narrative and tabular synthesis of studies organized by their reference standard strategy or comparative agreement method, resulting in six categorizations. Critical study details were frequently unreported, including the mechanism for patient/sample selection and researcher blinding to results, which lead to concern for bias. Conclusions Current studies estimating test performance characteristics have imperfect study design and statistical methods for the estimation of test performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The included studies employ heterogeneous methods and overall have an increased risk of bias. Employing standardized guidelines for study designs and statistical methods will improve the process for developing and validating rRT-PCR and NAAT for the diagnosis of COVID-19.