Short-Term Adverse Events and Antibody Response to the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in 4156 Health Care Professionals.

Short-term adverse events are common following the BNT162b2 vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and have been possibly associated with IgG response. We aimed to determine the incidence of adverse reactions to the vaccine and the impact on IgG response. Our study included 4156 health-care professionals who received two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine 21 days apart and obtained 6113 online questionnaires inquiring about adverse events. The serum response was tested in 2765 subjects 10 days after the second dose. Adverse events, most frequently a local reaction at the site of injection, were reported by 39% of subjects. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex (odds ratio-OR-1.95; 95% confidence interval-CI-1.74-2.19; p < 0.001), younger age (OR 0.98 per year, p < 0.001), second dose of vaccine (OR 1.36, p < 0.001), and previous COVID-19 infection (OR 1.41, p < 0.001) were independently associated with adverse events. IgG response was significantly higher in subjects with adverse events (1110 AU/mL-IQR 345-1630 vs. 386 AU/mL, IQR 261-1350, p < 0.0001), and the association was more pronounced in subjects experiencing myalgia, fever, and lymphadenopathy. We demonstrate that a more pronounced IgG response is associated with specific adverse events, and these are commonly reported by health care professionals after the BNT162b2 vaccine for SARS-Cov-2.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests in acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests could be essential in differentiating bacterial and viral acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections and driving antibiotic stewardship in the community. OBJECTIVES: To assess diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care tests in community settings for acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Open Gray) from inception to 31 May 2021, without language restrictions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Diagnostic test accuracy studies involving patients at primary care, outpatient clinic, emergency department and long-term care facilities with a clinical suspicion of acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. The comparator was any test used as a comparison to the index test. In order not to limit the study inclusion, the comparator was not defined a priori. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Four investigators independently extracted data, rated risk of bias, and assessed the quality using QUADAS-2. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The measures of diagnostic test accuracy were calculated with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 421 studies addressed at least one point-of-care test. The diagnostic performance of molecular tests was higher compared with that of rapid diagnostic tests for all the pathogens studied. The accuracy of stand-alone signs and symptoms or biomarkers was poor. Lung ultrasound showed high sensitivity and specificity (90% for both) for the diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae had sub-optimal sensitivity (range 49%-84%) but high specificity (>80%). DISCUSSION: Physical examination and host biomarkers are not sufficiently reliable as stand-alone tests to differentiate between bacterial and viral pneumonia. Lung ultrasound shows higher accuracy than chest X-ray for bacterial pneumonia at emergency department. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests cannot be considered fully reliable because of high false-negative rates. Overall, molecular tests for all the pathogens considered were found to be the most accurate.

Bronchoalveolar lavage in suspected COVID-19 cases with a negative nasopharyngeal swab: a retrospective cross-sectional study in a high-impact Northern Italy area.

COVID-19 diagnosis relies on molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal swab in the presence of suggestive clinical, radiological and laboratory findings. Since bronchoalveolar lavage liquid (BAL) collected during fibrobronchoscopy may increase test sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal swabs, it was performed during the 2020 pandemic in clinically or radiologically suspected cases. Our aim was to determine whether clinical features, chest computed tomography (CT) findings or laboratory tests may predict patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at BAL after a negative nasopharyngeal swab. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study with multivariable analysis of suspected patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at BAL after at least one negative nasopharyngeal swab. Univariable logistic regression for odds ratio and multivariate models was calculated to determine clinical, radiological and laboratory predictors. 32/198 (16%) patients had BAL positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 65/198 tested positive for other pathogens at BAL. Of the 32 patients positive for COVID, 4 had a coinfection at BAL, being thus positive both for COVID as well as for another pathogen while the remaining 105 patients were negative for COVID and other pathogens at BAL. COVID-19 patients had more often highly suggestive CT findings, higher number of involved lobes, more often ground glass opacity of more than 50% of lung parenchyma, and less frequently other radiologically suspected infections. At multivariate model, temperature also predicted BAL positivity. The procedure was well tolerated-with only one desaturation episode-while no healthcare worker was infected. In conclusion, when nasopharyngeal swabs are negative but there is clinical or imaging suspicion of COVID-19, BAL represents a complementary diagnostic tool, particularly in conjunction with suggestive/more extensive lung involvement at CT scan. The procedure did not carry increased risks for patients nor for operators, while allowing to free hospital resources, avoiding unnecessary isolations.