Real-World Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir on Covid-19-Associated Hospitalization Prevention: A Population-Based Cohort Study in the Province of Québec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has shown to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization and death before Omicron but updated real-world evidence studies are needed. This study aimed to assess whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization among high-risk outpatients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2-infected outpatients between March 15 and October 15, 2022, using data from the Québec clinico-administrative databases. Outpatients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to infected ones not receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir using propensity-score matching. Relative risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization occurring within 30 days following the index date was assessed using a Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 8,402 treated outpatients were matched to controls. Regardless of vaccination status, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with a 69% reduced relative risk of hospitalization (RR: 0.31 [95%CI: 0.28; 0.36], NNT=13). The effect was more pronounced in outpatients with incomplete primary vaccination course (RR: 0.04 [95%CI: 0.03; 0.06], NNT=8), while no benefit was found in those with a complete primary vaccination course (RR: 0.93 [95%CI: 0.78; 1.08]). Subgroups analysis among high-risk outpatients with a primary vaccination course showed that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with a significant decrease in relative risk of hospitalization in severely immunocompromised outpatients (RR: 0.66 [95%CI: 0.50; 0.89], NNT=16) and in high-risk outpatients aged 70 years and older (RR: 0.50 [95%CI: 0.34; 0.74], NNT=10) when the last dose of the vaccine was received at least six months ago. CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization among incompletely vaccinated high-risk outpatients and among some subgroups of completely vaccinated high-risk outpatients.

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection on the cobas Liat using water gargle samples.

Spring water gargle (SWG) is a suitable, non-invasive, alternative specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR. This study sought to evaluate the performance of the cobas Liat point-of-care system for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in SWG samples. SWG samples and standard oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) were collected simultaneously from participants in a COVID-19 screening clinic, in November and December 2020. Both sample types were analyzed in parallel on the cobas Liat platform and with the Seegene Allplex 2019-nCoV assay. Among the 110 participants, 53% had compatible symptoms and 71% had a contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. Only two (1.8%) individuals had neither symptoms nor contact. Amongst 110 paired samples, 25 (23%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the cobas Liat for a least one sample type, with a kappa coefficient of 0.92. Agreement between the cobas Liat platform and the Seegene assay was also excellent (kappa coefficient values of 0.94 and 0.95). Two SWG samples failed to provide a positive result when their ONPS pair was positive, but their cycle threshold (Ct) values were >35 on the Seegene assay, reflecting a low viral load. Overall, the performance of the cobas Liat platform is excellent for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in SWG samples in a high pre-test probability population.

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection on the cobas Liat using water gargle samples✰

Spring water gargle (SWG) is a suitable, non-invasive, alternative specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR. This study sought to evaluate the performance of the cobas Liat point-of-care system for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in SWG samples. SWG samples and standard oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) were collected simultaneously from participants in a COVID-19 screening clinic, in November and December 2020. Both sample types were analyzed in parallel on the cobas Liat platform and with the Seegene Allplex 2019-nCoV assay. Among the 110 participants, 53% had compatible symptoms and 71% had a contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. Only two (1.8%) individuals had neither symptoms nor contact. Amongst 110 paired samples, 25 (23%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the cobas Liat for a least one sample type, with a kappa coefficient of 0.92. Agreement between the cobas Liat platform and the Seegene assay was also excellent (kappa coefficient values of 0.94 and 0.95). Two SWG samples failed to provide a positive result when their ONPS pair was positive, but their cycle threshold (Ct) values were >35 on the Seegene assay, reflecting a low viral load. Overall, the performance of the cobas Liat platform is excellent for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in SWG samples in a high pre-test probability population.

Evaluation of water gargle samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay.

The Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay has been shown as a reliable and sensitive alternative to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing from nasopharyngeal or nasal samples in symptomatic patients. Water gargle is an acceptable noninvasive alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection by RT-PCR. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of water gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using the ID NOW. Residual gargle samples were randomly selected among positive standard of care (SOC)-nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) samples. For testing on ID NOW, the manufacturer's instructions were followed, except for the specimen addition step: 500 µl of the gargle specimen was added to the blue sample receiver with a pipette and gently mixed. Among the 202 positive samples by SOC-NAAT, 185 were positive by ID NOW (positive percent agreement [PPA]) = 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.9-95.0). For the 17 discordant samples, cycle threshold (Ct ) values were all ≥31.0. The PPA was significantly lower among asymptomatic patients (84.4%; 95% CI: 73.2-92.3) versus symptomatic patients (95.2%; 95% CI: 89.8-98.2). The performance of the ID NOW for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection on gargle samples is excellent when Ct values are <31.0 and for patients that have COVID-19 compatible symptoms.

Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed test.

The objective of this study was to validate the use of spring water gargle (SWG) as an alternative to oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection with a laboratory-developed test. Healthcare workers and adults from the general population, presenting to one of two COVID-19 screening clinics in Montréal and Québec City, were prospectively recruited to provide a gargle sample in addition to the standard ONPS. The paired specimens were analyzed using thermal lysis followed by a laboratory-developed nucleic acid amplification test (LD-NAAT) to detect SARS-CoV-2, and comparative performance analysis was performed. An individual was considered infected if a positive result was obtained on either sample. A total of 1297 adult participants were recruited. Invalid results (n = 18) were excluded from the analysis. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 144/1279 (11.3%) participants: 126 from both samples, 15 only from ONPS, and 3 only from SWG. Overall, the sensitivity was 97.9% (95% CI: 93.7-99.3) for ONPS and 89.6% (95% CI: 83.4-93.6; p = 0.005) for SWG. The mean ONPS cycle threshold (Ct ) value was significantly lower for the concordant paired samples as compared to discordant ones (22.9 vs. 32.1; p < 0.001). In conclusion, using an LD-NAAT with thermal lysis, SWG is a less sensitive sampling method than the ONPS. However, the higher acceptability of SWG might enable a higher rate of detection from a population-based perspective. Nonetheless, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of COVID-19, a repeated analysis with ONPS should be considered. The sensitivity of SWG using NAAT preceded by chemical extraction should be evaluated.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection with the Cobas® 6800/8800 system on gargle samples using two sample processing methods with combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab.

BACKGROUND: Gargle samples have been proposed as a noninvasive method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The clinical performance of gargle specimens diluted in Cobas® PCR Media and in Cobas® Omni Lysis Reagent was compared to oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. STUDY DESIGN: Participants were recruited prospectively in two COVID-19 screening clinics. In addition to the ONPS, participants gargled with 5 ml of natural spring water split in the laboratory as follows: 1 ml was added to 4.3 ml of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) media and 400 µl was added to 200 µl of lysis buffer. Testing was performed with the Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test on the Cobas® 6800 or 8800 platforms. RESULTS: Overall, 134/647 (20.7%) participants were considered infected because the ONPS or at least one gargle test was positive. ONPS had, respectively, a sensitivity of 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.3-98.5); both gargle processing methods were slightly less but equally sensitive (90.3% [95% CI: 83.9-94.3]). When ONPS and gargle specimens were both positive, the mean cycle threshold (Ct ) was significantly higher for gargles, suggesting lower viral loads. CONCLUSION: Gargle specimens directly added in PCR Media provide a similar clinical sensitivity to chemical lysis, both having a slightly, not significantly, lower sensitivity to ONPS.

Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized controlled trial.

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset ( NCT04348656 ). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm-relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Natural spring water gargle and direct RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-SPRING study).

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal swab has long been considered the specimen of choice for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it suffers from several drawbacks: its discomfort limits screening acceptability, and it is vulnerable to shortages in both specialized materials and trained healthcare workers in the context of a pandemic. METHODS: We prospectively compared natural spring water gargle to combined oro-nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in paired clinical specimens (1005 ONPS and 1005 gargles) collected from 987 unique early symptomatic as well as asymptomatic individuals from the community. RESULTS: Using a direct RT-PCR method with the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene), the clinical sensitivity of the gargle was 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2 - 98.3%), similar to the sensitivity of the ONPS (93.8%; 95% CI, 88.2 - 97.3%), despite significantly lower viral RNA concentration in gargles, as reflected by higher cycle threshold values. No single specimen type detected all COVID-19 cases. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was stable in gargles at room temperature for at least 7 days. CONCLUSION: The simplicity of this sampling method coupled with the accessibility of spring water are clear advantages in a pandemic situation where testing frequency, turnaround time and shortage of consumables and trained staff are critical elements.

Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays.

The accurate laboratory detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a crucial element in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing on combined oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) suffers from several limitations, including the need for qualified personnel, the discomfort caused by invasive nasopharyngeal sample collection, and the possibility of swab and transport media shortage. Testing on saliva would represent an advancement. The aim of this study was to compare the concordance between saliva samples and ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on various commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDT). Individuals were recruited from eight institutions in Quebec, Canada, if they had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected on a recently collected ONPS, and accepted to provide another ONPS, paired with saliva. Assays available in the different laboratories (Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Cobas® SARS-CoV-2, Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, RIDA®GENE SARS-CoV-2, and an LDT preceded by three different extraction methods) were used to determine the concordance between saliva and ONPS results. Overall, 320 tests were run from a total of 125 saliva and ONPS sample pairs. All assays yielded similar sensitivity when saliva was compared to ONPS, with the exception of one LDT (67% vs. 93%). The mean difference in cycle threshold (∆C t ) was generally (but not significantly) in favor of the ONPS for all nucleic acid amplification tests. The maximum mean ∆​​​​​C t was 2.0, while individual ∆C t varied importantly from -17.5 to 12.4. Saliva seems to be associated with sensitivity similar to ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by various assays.