Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(11): 2014-2017, 2023 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2310085

ABSTRACT

Using data from 67 Ugandan human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics (July 2019-January 2022), we report a 40% (1005/1662) reduction in the number of people with HIV presenting to care after August 2021 compared to prepandemic levels, with a greater proportion presenting with advanced HIV disease (20% vs 16% in the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Humans , Uganda/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV , Ambulatory Care Facilities
2.
Infect Dis Ther ; 11(6): 2099-2109, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2041353

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza share similar symptoms, which hampers diagnosis. Given that they require different containment and treatment strategies, fast and accurate distinction between the two infections is needed. This study evaluates the sensitivity and specificity of the microfluidic antigen LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B Test for simultaneous detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza A/B from a single nasal swab. METHODS: Nasal samples were collected from patients as part of the ASPIRE (NCT04557046) and INSPIRE (NCT04288921) studies at point-of-care testing sites in the USA. ASPIRE study participants were included after developing COVID-19 symptoms in the last 14 days or following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in the last 48 h. INSPIRE study participants were included after developing influenza symptoms in the last 4 days. Samples were extracted into proprietary buffer and analysed using the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B Test. A reference sample was taken from each subject, placed into universal transport medium and tested using reference SARS-CoV-2 and influenza reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. The test and reference samples were compared using the positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Analysis of the data from the ASPIRE (N = 124) and INSPIRE (N = 159) studies revealed high levels of agreement between the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B Test and the reference tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 (PPA = 95.5% [95% CI 84.9%, 98.7%]; NPA = 96.0% [95% CI 90.9%, 98.3%]), influenza A (PPA = 83.3% [95% CI 66.4%, 92.7%]; NPA = 97.7% [95% CI 93.4%, 99.2%]) and influenza B (PPA = 80.0% [95% CI 62.7%, 90.5%]; NPA = 95.3% [95% CI 90.2%, 97.9%]). CONCLUSIONS: The LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B Test shows a high agreement with the reference RT-PCR tests while simultaneously detecting and differentiating between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT04557046 and NCT04288921.

3.
Am J Clin Pathol ; 157(4): 602-607, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475766

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test has previously been shown to accurately detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals symptomatic for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This evaluation investigated the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test as an aid in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic adults and children. METHODS: Asymptomatic individuals at high risk of COVID-19 infection were recruited in 5 point-of-care (POC) settings. Two paired anterior nasal swabs were collected from each participant, tested by using the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test at the POC, and compared with results from reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays (cobas 6800 [Roche Diagnostics] or TaqPath [Thermo Fisher Scientific]). We calculated positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA), then stratified results on the basis of RT-PCR reference platform and cycle threshold. RESULTS: Of the 222 included study participants confirmed to be symptom-free for at least 2 weeks before testing, the PPA was 82.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.4%-92.1%). The LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test correctly identified 95.8% (95% CI, 79.8%-99.3%) of the samples confirmed positive in fewer than 33 RT-PCR cycles and 100% (95% CI, 85.1%-100%) in fewer than 30 RT-PCR cycles while maintaining 100% NPA. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid, high-sensitivity test can be used to screen asymptomatic patients for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in clinic- and community-based settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Fluorescent Antibody Technique , Humans , Microfluidics , Point-of-Care Systems , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
J Med Microbiol ; 70(4)2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1189541

ABSTRACT

Introduction. During previous viral pandemics, reported co-infection rates and implicated pathogens have varied. In the 1918 influenza pandemic, a large proportion of severe illness and death was complicated by bacterial co-infection, predominantly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus.Gap statement. A better understanding of the incidence of co-infection in patients with COVID-19 infection and the pathogens involved is necessary for effective antimicrobial stewardship.Aim. To describe the incidence and nature of co-infection in critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection in England.Methodology. A retrospective cohort study of adults with COVID-19 admitted to seven intensive care units (ICUs) in England up to 18 May 2020, was performed. Patients with completed ICU stays were included. The proportion and type of organisms were determined at <48 and >48 h following hospital admission, corresponding to community and hospital-acquired co-infections.Results. Of 254 patients studied (median age 59 years (IQR 49-69); 64.6 % male), 139 clinically significant organisms were identified from 83 (32.7 %) patients. Bacterial co-infections/ co-colonisation were identified within 48 h of admission in 14 (5.5 %) patients; the commonest pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (four patients) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (two patients). The proportion of pathogens detected increased with duration of ICU stay, consisting largely of Gram-negative bacteria, particularly Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. The co-infection/ co-colonisation rate >48 h after admission was 27/1000 person-days (95 % CI 21.3-34.1). Patients with co-infections/ co-colonisation were more likely to die in ICU (crude OR 1.78,95 % CI 1.03-3.08, P=0.04) compared to those without co-infections/ co-colonisation.Conclusion. We found limited evidence for community-acquired bacterial co-infection in hospitalised adults with COVID-19, but a high rate of Gram-negative infection acquired during ICU stay.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Coinfection/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bacteria/classification , Bacteria/isolation & purification , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , COVID-19/microbiology , Coinfection/microbiology , Critical Illness , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/microbiology , England/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL