Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical suspected COVID-19 patients on admission (POCUSCO): A prospective binational study.

BACKGROUND: Lung point-of-care ultrasonography (L-POCUS) is highly effective in detecting pulmonary peripheral patterns and may allow early identification of patients who are likely to develop an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesized that L-POCUS performed within the first 48 hours of non-critical patients with suspected COVID-19 would identify those with a high-risk of worsening. METHODS: POCUSCO was a prospective, multicenter study. Non-critical adult patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included and had L-POCUS performed within 48 hours following ED presentation. The lung damage severity was assessed using a previously developed score reflecting both the extension and the intensity of lung damage. The primary outcome was the rate of patients requiring intubation or who died within 14 days following inclusion. RESULTS: Among 296 patients, 8 (2.7%) met the primary outcome. The area under the curve (AUC) of L-POCUS was 0.80 [95%CI:0.60-0.94]. The score values which achieved a sensibility >95% in defining low-risk patients and a specificity >95% in defining high-risk patients were <1 and ≥16, respectively. The rate of patients with an unfavorable outcome was 0/95 (0%[95%CI:0-3.9]) for low-risk patients (score = 0), 4/184 (2.17%[95%CI:0.8-5.5]) for intermediate-risk patients (score 1-15) and 4/17 (23.5%[95%CI:11.4-42.4]) for high-risk patients (score ≥16). In confirmed COVID-19 patients (n = 58), the AUC of L-POCUS was 0.97 [95%CI:0.92-1.00]. CONCLUSION: L-POCUS performed within the first 48 hours following ED presentation allows risk-stratification of patients with non-severe COVID-19.

COVID-19 and Fungal infections: a double debacle.

Fungal infections remain hardly treatable because of unstandardized diagnostic tests, limited antifungal armamentarium, and more specifically, potential toxic interactions between antifungals and immunosuppressants used during anti-inflammatory therapies, such as those set up in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Taking into account pre-existing difficulties in treating vulnerable COVID-19 patients, any co-occurrence of infectious diseases like fungal infections constitutes a double debacle for patients, healthcare experts, and the public economy. Since the first appearance of SARS-CoV-2, a significant rise in threatening fungal co-infections in COVID-19 patients has been testified in the scientific literature. Better management of fungal infections in COVID-19 patients is, therefore, a priority and requires highlighting common risk factors, relationships with immunosuppression, as well as challenges in fungal diagnosis and treatment. The present review attempts to highlight these aspects in the three most identified causative agents of fungal co-infections in COVID-19 patients: Aspergillus, Candida, and Mucorales species.

Time to negative PCR conversion amongst high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the clinical and virological outcomes in Omicron BA.1- and BA.2-infected patients who received sotrovimab with those in patients who received nirmatrelvir for the prevention of severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this multi-centric, prospective ANRS 0003S CoCoPrev cohort study, patients at a high risk of progression of mild-to-moderate BA.1 or BA.2 COVID-19 who received sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir were included. The proportion of patients with progression to severe COVID-19, time between the start of treatment to negative PCR conversion, SARS-CoV-2 viral decay, and characterization of resistance variants were determined. A multi-variable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the time to negative PCR conversion and a mixed-effect model for the dynamics of viral decay. RESULTS: Amongst 255 included patients, 199 (80%) received ≥3 vaccine doses, 195 (76%) received sotrovimab, and 60 (24%) received nirmatrelvir. On day 28, new COVID-19-related hospitalization occurred in 4 of 193 (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%) sotrovimab-treated patients and 0 of 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p 0.24). One out of the 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients died (2%; 95% CI, 0-10%). The median time to negative PCR conversion was 11.5 days (95% CI, 10.5-13) in the sotrovimab-treated patients vs. 4 days (95% CI, 4-9) in the nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p < 0.001). Viral decay was faster in the patients who received nirmatrelvir (p < 0.001). In the multi-variable analysis, nirmatrelvir and nasopharyngeal PCR cycle threshold values were independently associated with faster conversion to negative PCR (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.56-3.56; p < 0.0001 and hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; p 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of nirmatrelvir in high-risk patients compared with that of sotrovimab was associated with faster viral clearance. This may participate to decrease transmission and prevent viral resistance.

Association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure assessed by the Mat-O-Covid job exposure matrix in the CONSTANCES cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light a new occupational health threat. We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 assessed by a job-exposure matrix (JEM), in a large population cohort. We also estimated the population-attributable fraction among exposed subjects. METHODS: We used the SAPRIS-SERO sample of the CONSTANCES cohort, limited to subjects actively working, and with a job code available and a questionnaire on extra work activities. The following outcomes were assessed: COVID-19 diagnosis was made by a physician; a seropositivity to the ELISA-S test ('serology strict') and ELISA-S test intermediate with positive ELISA-NP or a positive neutralising antibodies SN ('serology large'). Job exposure was assessed using Mat-O-Covid, an expert-based JEM with an Index used as a continuous variable and a threshold at 13/1000. RESULTS: The sample included 18 999 subjects with 389 different jobs, 47.7% were men with a mean age of 46.2 years (±9.2 years). The Mat-O-Covid index taken as a continuous variable or with a threshold greater than 13/1000 was associated with all the outcomes in bivariable and multivariable logistic models. ORs were between 1.30 and 1.58, and proportion of COVID-19 attributable to work among exposed participants was between 20% and 40%. DISCUSSION: Using the Mat-O-Covid JEM applied to a large population, we found a significant association between work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infection, though the estimation of attributable fraction among exposed people remained low to moderate. Further studies during other exposed periods and with other methods are necessary.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of XAV-19, a Swine Glyco-humanized Polyclonal Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody, for COVID-19-Related Moderate Pneumonia: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase IIa Study.

We assessed the pharmacokinetics and safety of XAV-19, a swine glyco-humanized polyclonal antibody against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related moderate pneumonia. The objective was to evaluate the optimal dose and safety of XAV-19 during this first administration to patients with COVID-19-related moderate pneumonia. In this phase IIa trial, adults with COVID-19-related moderate pneumonia with a duration of ≤10 days were randomized to receive an infusion of XAV-19 at 0.5 mg/kg of body weight at day 1 and day 5 (group 1), 2 mg/kg at day 1 and day 5 (group 2), or 2 mg/kg at day 1 (group 3) or placebo. Eighteen patients (n = 7 for group 1, n = 1 for group 2, n = 5 for group 3, and n = 5 for placebo) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups; median XAV-19 serum concentrations (ranges) at the time of the maximum serum concentration of the drug (Cmax) and at day 8 were 9.1 (5.2 to 18.1) and 6.4 (2.8 to 11.9) µg/ml, 71.5 and 47.2 µg/ml, and 50.4 (29.1 to 55.0) and 20.3 (12.0 to 22.7) µg/ml for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = 0.012). The median terminal half-life (range) was estimated at 11.4 (5.5 to 13.9) days for 2 mg/kg of XAV-19 at day 1. Serum XAV-19 concentrations were above the target concentration of 10 µg/ml (2-fold the in vitro 100% inhibitory concentration [IC100]) from the end of perfusion to more than 8 days for XAV-19 at 2 mg/kg at day 1. No hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions were reported during treatment, and there were no discontinuations for adverse events and no serious adverse events related to the study drug. A single intravenous dose of 2 mg/kg of XAV-19 demonstrated high serum concentrations, predictive of potent durable neutralizing activity with good tolerability. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04453384.).

Hydroxychloroquine in mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019: a placebo-controlled double blind trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine decreases the risk of adverse outcome in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at high risk of worsening. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients with at least one of the following risk factors for worsening: need for supplemental oxygen, age ≥75 years, age between 60 and 74 years and presence of at least one co-morbidity. Severely ill patients requiring oxygen therapy >3 L/min or intensive care were excluded. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg hydroxychloroquine on day 0 followed by 400 mg per day for 8 days or a placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death or start of invasive mechanical ventilation within 14 days following randomization. Secondary end points included mortality and clinical evolution at days 14 and 28, and viral shedding at days 5 and 10. RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 250 patients were included because of a slowing down of the pandemic in France. The intention-to-treat population comprised 123 and 124 patients in the placebo and hydroxychloroquine groups, respectively. The median age was 77 years (interquartile range 58-86 years) and 151/250 (60.4%) patients required oxygen therapy. The primary end point occurred in 9/124 (7.3%) patients in the hydroxychloroquine group and 8/123 (6.5%) patients in the placebo group (relative risk 1.12; 95% CI 0.45-2.80). The rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests at days 5 and 10 were 72.8% (75/103) and 57.1% (52/91) in the hydroxychloroquine group, versus 73.0% (73/100) and 56.6% (47/83) in the placebo group, respectively. No difference was observed between the two groups in any of the other secondary end points. CONCLUSION: In this underpowered trial involving mainly older patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, patients treated with hydroxychloroquine did not experience better clinical or virological outcomes than those receiving the placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04325893 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04325893).

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of XAV-19 in patients with COVID-19-induced moderate pneumonia: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 2 (2a and 2b) trial.

BACKGROUND: Early inhibition of entry and replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a very promising therapeutic approach. Polyclonal neutralizing antibodies offers many advantages such as providing immediate immunity, consequently blunting an early pro-inflammatory pathogenic endogenous antibody response and lack of drug-drug interactions. By providing immediate immunity and inhibiting entry into cells, neutralizing antibody treatment is of interest for patient with COVID-19-induced moderate pneumonia. Convalescent plasma to treat infected patients is therefore a relevant therapeutic option currently under assessment (CORIMUNO-PLASM NCT04324047). However, the difficulties of collecting plasma on the long term are not adapted to a broad use across all populations. New polyclonal humanized anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies (XAV-19) developed by Xenothera and administered intravenous. XAV-19 is a heterologous swine glyco-humanized polyclonal antibody (GH-pAb) raised against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, blocking infection of ACE-2-positive human cells with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have been performed in preclinical models including primates. A first human study with another fully representative GH-pAb from Xenothera is ongoing in recipients of a kidney graft. These studies indicated that 5 consecutive administrations of GH-pAbs can be safely performed in humans. The objectives of this 2-step phase 2 randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled study are to define the safety and the optimal XAV-19 dose to administrate to patients with SARS-CoV-2 induced moderate pneumonia, and to assess the clinical benefits of a selected dose of XAV-19 in this population. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the clinical benefits of XAV-19 when administered to patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced moderate pneumonia. As a prerequisite, a first step of the study will define the safety and the dose of XAV-19 to be used. Such treatment might become a new therapeutic option to provide an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients (possibly in combination with anti-viral and immunotherapies). Further studies could later evaluate such passive immunotherapy as a potential post-exposure prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04453384 , registered on 1 July 2020, and EUDRACT 2020-002574-27, registered 6 June 2020.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical COVID-19 patients on admission (POCUSCO): a study protocol of an international study.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, early identification of patients who are likely to get worse is a major concern. Severity mainly depends on the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with a predominance of subpleural lesions. Lung point-of-care ultrasonography (L-POCUS) is highly effective in detecting pulmonary peripheral patterns and may be appropriate for examining patients with COVID-19. We suggest that L-POCUS performed during the initial examination may identify patients with COVID-19 who are at a high risk of complicated treatment or unfavourable evolution. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical COVID-19 patients on admission is a prospective, multicentre study. Adult patients visiting the emergency department (ED) of participating centres for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are assessed for inclusion. Included patients have L-POCUS performed within 48 hours following ED admission. The severity of lung damage is assessed using the L-POCUS score based on 36 points for ARDS. Apart from the L-POCUS score assessment, patients are treated as recommended by the WHO. For hospitalised patients, a second L-POCUS is performed at day 5±3. A follow-up is carried out on day 14, and the patient's status according to the Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement for COVID-19 from the WHO is recorded.The primary outcome is the rate of patients requiring intubation or who are dead from any cause during the 14 days following inclusion. We will determine the area under the ROC curve of L-POCUS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the French and Belgian Ethics Committees and is carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The study is funding by a grant from the French Health Ministry, and its findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04338100.

COvid-19 and high-dose VITamin D supplementation TRIAL in high-risk older patients (COVIT-TRIAL): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: With the lack of effective therapy, chemoprevention, and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, focusing on the immediate repurposing of existing drugs gives hope of curbing the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent unbiased genomics-guided tracing of the SARS-CoV-2 targets in human cells identified vitamin D among the three top-scoring molecules manifesting potential infection mitigation patterns. Growing pre-clinical and epidemiological observational data support this assumption. We hypothesized that vitamin D supplementation may improve the prognosis of COVID-19. The aim of this trial is to compare the effect of a single oral high dose of cholecalciferol versus a single oral standard dose on all-cause 14-day mortality rate in COVID-19 older adults at higher risk of worsening. METHODS: The COVIT-TRIAL study is an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients aged ≥ 65 years with COVID-19 (diagnosed within the preceding 3 days with RT-PCR and/or chest CT scan) and at least one worsening risk factor at the time of inclusion (i.e., age ≥ 75 years, or SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air, or PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 mmHg), having no contraindications to vitamin D supplementation, and having received no vitamin D supplementation > 800 IU/day during the preceding month are recruited. Participants are randomized either to high-dose cholecalciferol (two 200,000 IU drinking vials at once on the day of inclusion) or to standard-dose cholecalciferol (one 50,000 IU drinking vial on the day of inclusion). Two hundred sixty participants are recruited and followed up for 28 days. The primary outcome measure is all-cause mortality within 14 days of inclusion. Secondary outcomes are the score changes on the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI) scale for COVID-19, and the between-group comparison of safety. These outcomes are assessed at baseline, day 14, and day 28, together with the serum concentrations of 25(OH)D, creatinine, calcium, and albumin at baseline and day 7. DISCUSSION: COVIT-TRIAL is to our knowledge the first randomized controlled trial testing the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the prognosis of COVID-19 in high-risk older patients. High-dose vitamin D supplementation may be an effective, well-tolerated, and easily and immediately accessible treatment for COVID-19, the incidence of which increases dramatically and for which there are currently no scientifically validated treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344041 . Registered on 14 April 2020 TRIAL STATUS: Recruiting. Recruitment is expected to be completed in April 2021.

Vitamin D Supplementation Associated to Better Survival in Hospitalized Frail Elderly COVID-19 Patients: The GERIA-COVID Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this quasi-experimental study was to determine whether bolus vitamin D supplementation taken either regularly over the preceding year or after the diagnosis of COVID-19 was effective in improving survival among hospitalized frail elderly COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients consecutively hospitalized for COVID-19 in a geriatric unit were included. Intervention groups were participants regularly supplemented with vitamin D over the preceding year (Group 1), and those supplemented with vitamin D after COVID-19 diagnosis (Group 2). The comparator group involved participants having received no vitamin D supplements (Group 3). Outcomes were 14-day mortality and highest (worst) score on the ordinal scale for clinical improvement (OSCI) measured during COVID-19 acute phase. Potential confounders were age, gender, functional abilities, undernutrition, cancer, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, glycated hemoglobin, number of acute health issues at admission, hospital use of antibiotics, corticosteroids, and pharmacological treatments of respiratory disorders. RESULTS: The three groups (n = 77; mean ± SD, 88 ± 5years; 49% women) were similar at baseline (except for woman proportion, p = 0.02), as were the treatments used for COVID-19. In Group 1 (n = 29), 93.1% of COVID-19 participants survived at day 14, compared to 81.2% survivors in Group 2 (n = 16) (p = 0.33) and 68.7% survivors in Group 3 (n = 32) (p = 0.02). While considering Group 3 as reference (hazard ratio (HR) = 1), the fully-adjusted HR for 14-day mortality was HR = 0.07 (p = 0.017) for Group 1 and HR = 0.37 (p = 0.28) for Group 2. Group 1 had longer survival time than Group 3 (log-rank p = 0.015), although there was no difference between Groups 2 and 3 (log-rank p = 0.32). Group 1, but not Group 2 (p = 0.40), was associated with lower risk of OSCI score ≥5 compared to Group 3 (odds ratio = 0.08, p= 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Regular bolus vitamin D supplementation was associated with less severe COVID-19 and better survival in frail elderly.

Vitamin D Supplementation Associated to Better Survival in Hospitalized Frail Elderly COVID-19 Patients: The GERIA-COVID Quasi-Experimental Study

Background. The objective of this quasi-experimental study was to determine whether bolus vitamin D supplementation taken either regularly over the preceding year or after the diagnosis of COVID-19 was effective in improving survival among hospitalized frail elderly COVID-19 patients. Methods. Seventy-seven patients consecutively hospitalized for COVID-19 in a geriatric unit were included. Intervention groups were participants regularly supplemented with vitamin D over the preceding year (Group 1), and those supplemented with vitamin D after COVID-19 diagnosis (Group 2). The comparator group involved participants having received no vitamin D supplements (Group 3). Outcomes were 14-day mortality and highest (worst) score on the ordinal scale for clinical improvement (OSCI) measured during COVID-19 acute phase. Potential confounders were age, gender, functional abilities, undernutrition, cancer, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, glycated hemoglobin, number of acute health issues at admission, hospital use of antibiotics, corticosteroids, and pharmacological treatments of respiratory disorders. Results. The three groups (n = 77;mean ±SD, 88 ±5years;49% women) were similar at baseline (except for woman proportion, p = 0.02), as were the treatments used for COVID-19. In Group 1 (n = 29), 93.1% of COVID-19 participants survived at day 14, compared to 81.2% survivors in Group 2 (n = 16) (p = 0.33) and 68.7% survivors in Group 3 (n = 32) (p = 0.02). While considering Group 3 as reference (hazard ratio (HR) = 1), the fully-adjusted HR for 14-day mortality was HR = 0.07 (p = 0.017) for Group 1 and HR = 0.37 (p = 0.28) for Group 2. Group 1 had longer survival time than Group 3 (log-rank p = 0.015), although there was no difference between Groups 2 and 3 (log-rank p = 0.32). Group 1, but not Group 2 (p = 0.40), was associated with lower risk of OSCI score ≥5 compared to Group 3 (odds ratio = 0.08, p= 0.03). Conclusions. Regular bolus vitamin D supplementation was associated with less severe COVID-19 and better survival in frail elderly.

[Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19]. / Caractéristiques cliniques et épidémiologiques de la Covid-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the coronavirus with respiratory tropism responsible for COVID-19, was isolated for the first time in China at the end of 2019. Several months after its discovery and despite its pandemic spread, there are still many grey areas concerning the pathophysiology and treatment of COVID-19. However, we have strong data on its epidemiological characteristics and the clinical expression of this disease is now well described.

Outpatient management or hospitalization of patients with proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: the HOME-CoV rule.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and overloaded hospitals, a central issue is the need to define reliable and consensual criteria for hospitalization or outpatient management in mild cases of COVID-19. Our aim was to define an easy-to-use clinical rule aiming to help emergency physicians in hospitalization or outpatient management decision-making for patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (the HOME-CoV rule). The Delphi method was used to reach a consensus of a large panel of 51 experts: emergency physicians, geriatricians, infectious disease specialists, and ethical consultants. A preliminary list of eligible criteria was compiled based on a literature review. Four rounds of anonymized expert consultations were performed. The experts were asked to score each item as relevant, possibly relevant and non-relevant, as major or minor, and to choose the cut-off. They were also able make suggestions and remarks. Eight criteria constituting the HOME-CoV were selected: six correspond to the severity of clinical signs, one to the clinical course (clinically significant worsening within the last 24 h), and the last corresponds to the association of a severe comorbidity and an inadequate living context. Hospitalization is deemed necessary if a patient meets one or more of the criteria. In the end, 94.4% of the experts agreed with the defined rule. Thanks to the Delphi method, an absolute consensus was obtained of a large panel of experts on the HOME-CoV rule, a decision-making support mechanism for clinicians to target patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring hospitalization.Trial registration: NCT04338841.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech).

BACKGROUND: The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 has promoted the development of new serological tests that could be complementary to RT-PCR. Nevertheless, the assessment of clinical performances of available tests is urgently required as their use has just been initiated for diagnose. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: Two automated immunoassays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG/IgA assays) and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19) were tested. 293 specimens were analyzed from patients with a positive RT-PCR response, from patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 but exhibiting a negative response to the RT-PCR detection test, and from control group specimens. Days since symptoms onset were collected from clinical information sheet associated with respiratory tract samples. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity for IgG was equivalent (around 80 %) for CLIA, ELISA and LFIA. Sensitivity for IgG detection, >14 days after onset of symptoms, was 100.0 % for all assays. Overall specificity for IgG was greater for CLIA and LFIA (more than 98 %) compared to ELISA (95.8 %). Specificity was significantly different between IgA ELISA (78.9 %) and IgM LFIA (95.8 %) (p < 0.05). The best agreement was observed between CLIA and LFIA assays (97 %; k = 0.936). CONCLUSION: Excellent sensitivity for IgG detection was obtained >14 days after onset of symptoms for all immunoassays. Specificity was also excellent for IgG CLIA and IgG LFIA. Our study shows that NG-Test® is reliable and accurate for routine use in clinical laboratories.