Since the outbreak of the COVID–19 crisis in late 2019, millions of people have been diagnosed all over the world. Fortunately, the majority of hospitalized COVID–19 patients have been successfully discharged. However, many studies have reported that those discharged from hospital could be tested viral nucleic acid positive again [2–5], arising the possibility of a potential re-infection.
Results in this study showed that ‘re-positive’ patients do not show any distinguishing clinical markers, except the illness severity, casting a shadow on the existence of such a special group of patients.
What was accepted by all researchers was that the sensitivity of many viral RNA detection kit currently in use could be relatively low and was affected by many factors (e.g. quality control of the kits, quality and delivery method of the samples, etc) [6]. Xiao and colleagues found this re-positive phenomenon could possibly be resulted from the false-negative of RT-PCR, and they did observe that a certain number of patients had a prolonged viral RNA conversion time [7]. Their results were consistent with ours in that the re-positive patients might not exist as a special group but appeared due to some technical reasons. Moreover, Yuan and colleagues retrospectively studied 25 re-positive COVID–19 patients in Shenzhen, China and suggested the results of viral nucleic acid by RT-PCR were fluctuated and unstable, even if the patients could have negative results of the nucleic acid tests of respiratory pathogens for consecutive two times before discharge [8]. This study also suggested that the re-positive phenomenon could be a technical bias rather than an existing patient group.
Besides the possibility of false-negative results from RT-PCR, sample selection and collection could also lead to the ‘re-positive’ samples detection. For instance, the sample (nasopharyngeal swab) that is collected might have less virus load compared to other lower respiratory tract samples (e.g. alveolar lavage fluid), leading to an unreliable RT-PCR result. Efficient virus load could be key to have positive RT-PCR results, however, SARS-CoV–2 binds to ACE2 receptor which are mainly located in lower respiratory tract rather than upper [9]. Furthermore, even though samples are collected properly resulting in positive results, it could potentially not prove that patients are infective, as only those who can transmit live virus are supposed to be defined as infective patients [10].
Some researchers argued that the use of corticosteroid may have potential risks, as it could suppress our immune functions, decreasing the ability of viral clearance [11]. Theoretically, this could be a reasonable hypothesis, accounting for the occurrence of re-positive cases, however, in the present study, the use of corticosteroid did not give rise to ‘re-positive’ patients, consistent with previous work by Lan [2].
Lan and colleagues found those ‘re-positive’ patients to be younger with a shorter hospitalization time and shorter seroconversion. However, in the present study, the opposite was found. Specifically, ‘re-positive’ patients tend to be severe cases, with higher APACHE II score, CURB–65 score and longer hospitalization time.
Some limitations of the present study merit consideration. Firstly, no mild case were enrolled in this study due to different local medical care policies. Specifically, Wuhan was the first city in China with the COVID–19 outbreak, and had largest cases patients in the country. To increase the medical care efficiency, many Fangcang shelter hospitals were created for mild COVID–19 cases [12]. Therefore, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, as a large general hospital, mainly dealt with patients ranging from moderate to critical level. Additionally, at the beginning of COVID–9 outbreak in Wuhan, every large general hospital was overloaded, which may have resulted in an imperfect quality control of sample collection and delivery. Consequently, patients enrolled in this study are different to previous published result by Lan, which may lead to bias. Moreover, in Lan’s study, the severity type of their enrolled patients are different from ours as most of the COVID–19 patient in their study are general cases which may also cause bias. Additionally, a novel pathogen as SARS-CoV–2 is, it currently not certain that what, the virus itself or the excessive immune reaction, account for the severity of patients. Therefore, it remains possible those severe and critical patients have higher viral loads and longer clearance time. More researches regarding this problem are necessary. Furthermore, this study is a single-center, retrospective study with limited participants, therefore, more prospective clinical researches are needed.
Some researchers hypothesized that the re-positive cases could be a virus re-infection[13]. Immunologically speaking, after the acute infection of the SARS-CoV–2, the human body could generate specific neutralizing antibodies against this virus for at least 7 days [14]; furthermore a recent animal experiment in rhesus macaque indicated re-infection phenomenon would not happen [15]. These result are in line with other studies on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)[16] and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS)[17], as these three different viruses are all members of corona virus family, sharing many common features.
In conclusion, in the present study, 30 ‘re-positive’ COVID–19 patients were compared to 237 non-’re-positive’ patients, showing no significant differences between these two groups based on clinical characteristics, but correlated to illness severity. Up to now, no evidence indicates ‘re-positive’ patients are still infective, and those who have close contacts with ‘re-positive’ patients are currently safe, but follow up studies are in progress.
Still, since understanding of the mechanisms of SARS-CoV–2 is lacking, a careful discharge protocol should be applied (e.g. negative results of the nucleic acid tests of respiratory pathogens for 3 consecutive times), and the post-discharge quarantine should be strictly observed, especially those COVID–19 patients in severe and critical groups.