Comparison of Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Swab Nucleic Acid Amplification and Rapid Antigen Testing To Detect Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern: a Prospective Clinical Trial (OMICRON).

In November 2021, the World Health Organization declared the Omicron variant (B.1.1.519) a variant of concern. Since then, worries have been expressed regarding the ability of usual diagnostic tests to detect the Omicron variant. In addition, some recently published data suggested that the salivary reverse transcription (RT)-PCR might perform better than the current gold standard, nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. In this study, we aimed to compare the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and saliva RT-PCR and assess the diagnostic performances of rapid antigen testing (RAT) in nasopharyngeal and saliva samples. We conducted a prospective clinical study among symptomatic health care professionals consulting the occupational health service of our hospital for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening and hospitalized patients in internal medicine/intensive care wards screened for SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19-compatible symptoms. A composite outcome considering NP PCR and/or saliva PCR was used as a reference standard to define COVID-19 cases. A total of 475 paired NP/saliva specimens have been collected with a positivity rate of 40% (n = 192). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivities of 98% (95% CI, 94 to 99%) and 87% (95% CI, 81 to 91%), respectively, for outpatients (n = 453) and 94% (95% CI, 72 to 99%) and 69% (95% CI, 44 to 86%), respectively, for hospitalized patients (n = 22). Nasopharyngeal rapid antigen testing exhibited much lower diagnostic performances (sensitivity of 66% and 31% for outpatients and inpatients, respectively), while saliva RAT showed a sensitivity of less than 5% in both groups. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR testing remains the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant screening. Salivary RT-PCR can be used as an alternative in case of contraindication to perform NP sampling. The use of RAT should be limited to settings where access to molecular diagnostic methods is lacking. IMPORTANCE The Omicron variant of concern spread rapidly since it was first reported in November 2021 and currently accounts for the vast majority of new infections worldwide. Recent reports suggest that saliva sampling might outweigh nasopharyngeal sampling for the diagnosis of the Omicron variant. Nevertheless, data investigating the best diagnostic strategy specifically for the Omicron variant of concern remain scarce. This study fills this gap in current knowledge and elucidates the question of which strategy to use in which patient. It provides a new basis for further improving COVID-19 screening programs and managing patients suspected to have COVID-19.

Canakinumab in patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes - A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity have chronic activation of the innate immune system possibly contributing to the higher risk of hyperinflammatory response to SARS-CoV2 and severe COVID-19 observed in this population. We tested whether interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) blockade using canakinumab improves clinical outcome. Methods: CanCovDia was a multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of canakinumab plus standard-of-care compared with placebo plus standard-of-care in patients with type 2 diabetes and a BMI > 25 kg/m2 hospitalised with SARS-CoV2 infection in seven tertiary-hospitals in Switzerland. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single intravenous dose of canakinumab (body weight adapted dose of 450-750 mg) or placebo. Canakinumab and placebo were compared based on an unmatched win-ratio approach based on length of survival, ventilation, ICU stay and hospitalization at day 29. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510493. Findings: Between October 17, 2020, and May 12, 2021, 116 patients were randomly assigned with 58 in each group. One participant dropped out in each group for the primary analysis. At the time of randomization, 85 patients (74·6 %) were treated with dexamethasone. The win-ratio of canakinumab vs placebo was 1·08 (95 % CI 0·69-1·69; p = 0·72). During four weeks, in the canakinumab vs placebo group 4 (7·0%) vs 7 (12·3%) participants died, 11 (20·0 %) vs 16 (28·1%) patients were on ICU, 12 (23·5 %) vs 11 (21·6%) were hospitalised for more than 3 weeks, respectively. Median ventilation time at four weeks in the canakinumab vs placebo group was 10 [IQR 6.0, 16.5] and 16 days [IQR 14.0, 23.0], respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c after four weeks despite a lower number of anti-diabetes drug administered in patients treated with canakinumab. Finally, high-sensitive CRP and IL-6 was lowered by canakinumab. Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (11·4%) in each group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with canakinumab in addition to standard-of-care did not result in a statistically significant improvement of the primary composite outcome. Patients treated with canakinumab required significantly less anti-diabetes drugs to achieve similar glycaemic control. Canakinumab was associated with a prolonged reduction of systemic inflammation. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation grant #198415 and University of Basel. Novartis supplied study medication.

COVID-19 rapidly increases MDSCs and prolongs innate immune dysfunctions.

We used unsupervised immunophenotyping of blood leukocytes and measured cytokine production by innate immune cell exposed to LPS and R848. We show that COVID-19 induces a rapid, transient upregulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) accompanied by a rapid, sustained (up to 3 months) hyporesponsiveness of dendritic cells and monocytes. Blood MDSCs may represent biomarkers and targets for intervention strategies in COVID-19 patients.

Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing and RT-PCR Performed on Nasopharyngeal Swabs versus Saliva Samples in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Prospective Comparative Trial (RESTART).

Saliva sampling could serve as an alternative non-invasive sample for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while rapid antigen tests (RATs) might help to mitigate the shortage of reagents sporadically encountered with RT-PCR. Thus, in the RESTART study we compared antigen and RT-PCR testing methods on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and salivary samples. We conducted a prospective observational study among COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 10 December 2020 and 1 February 2021. Paired saliva and NP samples were investigated by RT-PCR (Cobas 6800, Roche-Switzerland, Basel, Switzerland) and by two rapid antigen tests: One Step Immunoassay Exdia® COVID-19 Ag (Precision Biosensor, Daejeon, Korea) and Standard Q® COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche-Switzerland). A total of 58 paired NP-saliva specimens were collected. A total of 32 of 58 (55%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit, and the median duration of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 5-19). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivity of 98% and 69% respectively, whereas the specificity of these RT-PCRs assays was 100%. The NP RATs exhibited much lower diagnostic performance, with sensitivities of 35% and 41% for the Standard Q® and Exdia® assays, respectively, when a wet-swab approach was used (i.e., when the swab was diluted in the viral transport medium (VTM) before testing). The sensitivity of the dry-swab approach was slightly better (47%). These antigen tests exhibited very low sensitivity (4% and 8%) when applied to salivary swabs. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR is the most accurate test for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients. RT-PCR on salivary samples may be used when nasopharyngeal swabs are contraindicated. RATs are not appropriate for hospitalized patients.

Epidemiology, risk factors and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in a Swiss university hospital: An observational retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 patients in a Swiss university hospital. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all adult patients hospitalized with a laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 1 to March 25, 2020. We extracted data from electronic health records. The primary outcome was the need to mechanical ventilation at day 14. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify risk factors for mechanical ventilation. Follow-up was of at least 14 days. RESULTS: 145 patients were included in the multivariate model, of whom 36 (24.8%) needed mechanical ventilation at 14 days. The median time from symptoms onset to mechanical ventilation was 9·5 days (IQR 7.00, 12.75). Multivariable regression showed increased odds of mechanical ventilation with age (OR 1.09 per year, 95% CI 1.03-1.16, p = 0.002), in males (OR 6.99, 95% CI 1.68-29.03, p = 0.007), in patients who presented with a qSOFA score ≥2 (OR 7.24, 95% CI 1.64-32.03, p = 0.009), with bilateral infiltrate (OR 18.92, 3.94-98.23, p<0.001) or with a CRP of 40 mg/l or greater (OR 5.44, 1.18-25.25; p = 0.030) on admission. Patients with more than seven days of symptoms on admission had decreased odds of mechanical ventilation (0.087, 95% CI 0.02-0.38, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study gives some insight in the epidemiology and clinical course of patients admitted in a European tertiary hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Age, male sex, high qSOFA score, CRP of 40 mg/l or greater and a bilateral radiological infiltrate could help clinicians identify patients at high risk for mechanical ventilation.

Predicting Venous Thromboembolic Events in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Requiring Hospitalization: an Observational Retrospective Study by the COVIDIC Initiative in a Swiss University Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can result in profound changes in blood coagulation. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) among patients with COVID-19 requiring hospital admission. Subjects and Methods. We performed a retrospective study at the Lausanne University Hospital with patients admitted because of COVID-19 from February 28 to April 30, 2020. RESULTS: Among 443 patients with COVID-19, VTE was diagnosed in 41 patients (9.3%; 27 pulmonary embolisms, 12 deep vein thrombosis, one pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, one portal vein thrombosis). VTE was diagnosed already upon admission in 14 (34.1%) patients and 27 (65.9%) during hospital stay (18 in ICU and nine in wards outside the ICU). Multivariate analysis revealed D-dimer value > 3,120 ng/ml (P < 0.001; OR 15.8, 95% CI 4.7-52.9) and duration of 8 days or more from COVID-19 symptoms onset to presentation (P 0.020; OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.3-18.3) to be independently associated with VTE upon admission. D-dimer value ≥ 3,000 ng/l combined with a Wells score for PE ≥ 2 was highly specific (sensitivity 57.1%, specificity 91.6%) in detecting VTE upon admission. Development of VTE during hospitalization was independently associated with D-dimer value > 5,611 ng/ml (P < 0.001; OR 6.3, 95% CI 2.4-16.2) and mechanical ventilation (P < 0.001; OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.3-15.1). CONCLUSIONS: VTE seems to be a common COVID-19 complication upon admission and during hospitalization, especially in ICU. The combination of Wells ≥ 2 score and D - dimer ≥ 3,000 ng/l is a good predictor of VTE at admission.