Results from a systematic programme of evaluating COVID-19 reinfection cases in the early phase of the pandemic, Singapore

• Main Authors: Tan, Glorijoy Shi En, Gao, Christine Qiuhan, Ow, Jievanda Shu Ying, Tan, Thuan Thong, Ooi, Say Tat, Lin, Cui, Lin, Raymond Tzer Pin, Lee, Vernon Jian Ming, Chan, Monica, Leo, Yee Sin, Vasoo, Shawn
• Other Authors: Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: 2023
• Subjects: Science::Medicine; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/169545
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to describe the coronavirus disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) reinfection evaluation algorithm used in the early phase of the pandemic in Singapore and analyze the clinical and laboratory characteristics of the cases evaluated. Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control analysis including all COVID-19 cases evaluated for possible reinfection under the local COVID-19 reinfection evaluation programme between 1 June 2020-30 June 2021. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was used as confirmatory testing. We compared all reinfection (“RI”) cases against those who were evaluated but eventually assessed not to be reinfection (“non-RI”). Results: There were 74 possible reinfection cases evaluated through the programme, of which 32 were subsequently classified as RI. There was strong statistical evidence that RI cases had a longer interval between 1st and 2nd episode (mean 297 days; 95%-confidence interval (CI) 267–327) compared to non-RI cases (mean 186 days; 95%-CI 144–228). The cycle threshold (Ct) value of initial polymerase chain rection (PCR) at 2nd episode was also found to be significantly lower in RI cases (mean 23; 95%-CI 20–26) compared to non-RI cases (mean 34; 95%-CI 32–36). There was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals who had fever, acute respiratory symptoms or asymptomatic in both groups. Delta and beta variants were most commonly identified from WGS and provide indication of re-infection as these were not ‘wild-type’ and were not circulating during the time period of the index infection. Conclusions: Using a combination of serologic, microbiologic and genomic criteria to evaluate possible reinfection cases is useful and can provide a framework for evaluation that may be modified for future similar situations.