Clinical impact of the rapid molecular detection of RSV and influenza A and B viruses in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Using respiratory virus rapid diagnostic tests in the emergency department could allow better and faster clinical management. Point-of-care PCR instruments now provide results in less than 30 minutes. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the use of a rapid molecular diagnostic test, the cobas® Influenza A/B & RSV Assay, during the clinical management of emergency department patients. METHODS: Patients (adults and children) requiring admission or suffering from an underlying condition at risk of respiratory complications were prospectively recruited in the emergency department of four hospitals in the Brussels region. Physicians' intentions regarding admission, isolation, antibiotic, and antiviral use were collected before and after performing the rapid molecular test. Additionally, a comparison of the analytical performance of this test against antigen rapid tests and viral culture was performed as well as a time-to-result evaluation. RESULTS: Among the 293 patients recruited, 90 had a positive PCR, whereas 44 had a positive antigen test. PCR yielded a sensitivity of 100% for all targets. Antigen tests yielded sensitivities ranging from 66.7% for influenza B to 83.3% for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The use of PCR allowed a decrease in the overall need for isolation and treatment by limiting the isolation of negative patients and antibiotic use for positive patients. Meanwhile, antiviral treatments better targeted patients with a positive influenza PCR. CONCLUSION: The use of a rapid influenza and RSV molecular test improves the clinical management of patients admitted to the emergency department by providing a fast and reliable result. Their additional cost compared to antigen tests should be balanced with the benefit of their analytical performance, leading to efficient reductions in the need for isolation and antibiotic use.

Nationwide Harmonization Effort for Semi-Quantitative Reporting of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Test Results in Belgium.

From early 2020, a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests was driven by several testing indications, including asymptomatic cases, resulting in the massive roll-out of PCR assays to combat the pandemic. Considering the dynamic of viral shedding during the course of infection, the demand to report cycle threshold (Ct) values rapidly emerged. As Ct values can be affected by a number of factors, we considered that harmonization of semi-quantitative PCR results across laboratories would avoid potential divergent interpretations, particularly in the absence of clinical or serological information. A proposal to harmonize reporting of test results was drafted by the National Reference Centre (NRC) UZ/KU Leuven, distinguishing four categories of positivity based on RNA copies/mL. Pre-quantified control material was shipped to 124 laboratories with instructions to setup a standard curve to define thresholds per assay. For each assay, the mean Ct value and corresponding standard deviation was calculated per target gene, for the three concentrations (107, 105 and 103 copies/mL) that determine the classification. The results of 17 assays are summarized. This harmonization effort allowed to ensure that all Belgian laboratories would report positive PCR results in the same semi-quantitative manner to clinicians and to the national database which feeds contact tracing interventions.

A Retrospective, Monocentric Study Comparing Co and Secondary Infections in Critically Ill COVID-19 and Influenza Patients.

Few data are available on infectious complications in critically ill patients with different viral infections. We performed a retrospective monocentric study including all of the patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed COVID-19 (as of 13 March 2020) or Influenza A and/or B infections (as of 1 January 2015) until 20 April 2020. Coinfection and secondary infections (occurring within and after 48 h from admission, respectively) were recorded. Fifty-seven COVID-19 and 55 Influenza patients were included. Co-infections were documented in 13/57 (23%) COVID-19 patients vs. 40/55 (73%) Influenza patients (p < 0.001), most of them being respiratory (9/13, 69% vs. 35/40, 88%; p = 0.13) and of bacterial origin (12/13, 92% vs. 29/40, 73%; p = 0.25). Invasive aspergillosis infections were observed only in Influenza patients (8/55, 15%). The COVID-19 and Influenza patients presented 1 (0-4) vs. 0 (0-4) secondary infections (p = 0.022), with comparable sites being affected (lungs: 35/61, 57% vs. 13/31, 42%; p = 0.16) and causative pathogens occurring (Gram-negative bacteria: 51/61, 84% vs. 23/31, 74%; p > 0.99). The COVID-19 patients had longer ICU lengths of stay (15 (-65) vs. 5 (1-89) days; p = 0.001), yet the two groups had comparable mortality rates (20/57, 35% vs. 23/55, 41%; p = 0.46). We report fewer co-infections but more secondary infections in the ICU COVID-19 patients compared to the Influenza patients. Most of the infectious complications were respiratory and of bacterial origin.

A Retrospective, Monocentric Study Comparing Co and Secondary Infections in Critically Ill COVID-19 and Influenza Patients

Few data are available on infectious complications in critically ill patients with different viral infections. We performed a retrospective monocentric study including all of the patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed COVID-19 (as of 13 March 2020) or Influenza A and/or B infections (as of 1 January 2015) until 20 April 2020. Coinfection and secondary infections (occurring within and after 48 h from admission, respectively) were recorded. Fifty-seven COVID-19 and 55 Influenza patients were included. Co-infections were documented in 13/57 (23%) COVID-19 patients vs. 40/55 (73%) Influenza patients (p < 0.001), most of them being respiratory (9/13, 69% vs. 35/40, 88%;p = 0.13) and of bacterial origin (12/13, 92% vs. 29/40, 73%;p = 0.25). Invasive aspergillosis infections were observed only in Influenza patients (8/55, 15%). The COVID-19 and Influenza patients presented 1 (0–4) vs. 0 (0–4) secondary infections (p = 0.022), with comparable sites being affected (lungs: 35/61, 57% vs. 13/31, 42%;p = 0.16) and causative pathogens occurring (Gram-negative bacteria: 51/61, 84% vs. 23/31, 74%;p > 0.99). The COVID-19 patients had longer ICU lengths of stay (15 (–65) vs. 5 (1–89) days;p = 0.001), yet the two groups had comparable mortality rates (20/57, 35% vs. 23/55, 41%;p = 0.46). We report fewer co-infections but more secondary infections in the ICU COVID-19 patients compared to the Influenza patients. Most of the infectious complications were respiratory and of bacterial origin.

Evaluation and Modelling of the Performance of an Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay According to Sample Type, Target Population and Epidemic Trends.

The Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay performance was evaluated on prospectively collected saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) of recently ill in- and outpatients and according to the estimated viral load. Performances were calculated using RT-PCR positive NPS from patients with symptoms ≤ 7 days and RT-PCR negative NPS as gold standard. In addition, non-selected positive NPS were analyzed to assess the performances on various viral loads. This assay yielded a sensitivity of 93.1% on NPS and 71.4% on saliva for recently ill patients. For NPS with a viral load > 103 RNA copies/mL, sensitivity was 96.4%. A model established on our daily routine showed fluctuations of the performances depending on the epidemic trends but an overall good negative predictive value. Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 assay yielded good performance for an automated antigen detection assay on NPS. Using it for the detection of recently ill patients or to screen high-risk patients could be an interesting alternative to the more expensive RT-PCR.

Leveraging of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Cycle Thresholds Values to Forecast COVID-19 Trends.

Introduction: We assessed the usefulness of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) values trends produced by the LHUB-ULB (a consolidated microbiology laboratory located in Brussels, Belgium) for monitoring the epidemic's dynamics at local and national levels and for improving forecasting models. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Ct values produced from April 1, 2020, to May 15, 2021, were compared with national COVID-19 confirmed cases notifications according to their geographical and time distribution. These Ct values were evaluated against both a phase diagram predicting the number of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care and an age-structured model estimating COVID-19 prevalence in Belgium. Results: Over 155,811 RT-PCR performed, 12,799 were positive and 7,910 Ct values were available for analysis. The 14-day median Ct values were negatively correlated with the 14-day mean daily positive tests with a lag of 17 days. In addition, the 14-day mean daily positive tests in LHUB-ULB were strongly correlated with the 14-day mean confirmed cases in the Brussels-Capital and in Belgium with coinciding start, peak, and end of the different waves of the epidemic. Ct values decreased concurrently with the forecasted phase-shifts of the diagram. Similarly, the evolution of 14-day median Ct values was negatively correlated with daily estimated prevalence for all age-classes. Conclusion: We provide preliminary evidence that trends of Ct values can help to both follow and predict the epidemic's trajectory at local and national levels, underlining that consolidated microbiology laboratories can act as epidemic sensors as they gather data that are representative of the geographical area they serve.

Comparison of the Quantitative DiaSorin Liaison Antigen Test to Reverse Transcription-PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Outpatients.

We evaluated the quantitative DiaSorin Liaison severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals consulting their general practitioners (GPs) during a period of stable intense virus circulation (213/100,000 habitants per day). Leftover reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) positive (n = 204) and negative (n = 210) nasopharyngeal samples were randomly selected among fresh routine samples collected from patients consulting their GPs. Samples were tested on Liaison XL according to the manufacturer's instructions. Equivocal results were considered negative. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Liaison antigen test compared to RT-PCR were 65.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58.9% to 71.9%) and 100% (CI, 97.8% to 100%). Sensitivity in samples with viral loads of ≥105, ≥104, and ≥103 copies/ml were 100% (CI, 96.3% to 100.0%), 96.5% (CI, 91.8% to 98.7%), and 87.4% (CI, 81.3% to 91.5%), respectively. All samples with ≤103 copies/ml were antigen negative. The ratio of antigen concentration to viral load in samples with ≥103 copies/ml was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (P = 0.58). The proportion of RT-PCR-positive participants with a high viral load (≥105 copies/ml) was not significantly higher in symptomatic than in asymptomatic participants (63.9% [CI, 54.9% to 72.0%] versus 51.9% [CI, 41.1% to 62.6%]; P = 0.11), but the proportion of participants with a low viral load (<103 copies/ml) was significantly higher in asymptomatic than in symptomatic RT-PCR-positive participants (35.4% [CI, 25.8% to 46.4%] versus 14.3% [CI, 9.0% to 21.8%]; P < 0.01). Sensitivity and specificity in samples with a viral load of ≥104 copies/ml were 96.5% and 100%. The correlation of antigen concentration with viral load was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests: Algorithm and Field Evaluation From the Near Patient Testing to the Automated Diagnostic Platform.

Introduction: Since the first wave of COVID-19 in Europe, new diagnostic tools using antigen detection and rapid molecular techniques have been developed. Our objective was to elaborate a diagnostic algorithm combining antigen rapid diagnostic tests, automated antigen dosing and rapid molecular tests and to assess its performance under routine conditions. Methods: An analytical performance evaluation of four antigen rapid tests, one automated antigen dosing and one molecular point-of-care test was performed on samples sent to our laboratory for a SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR. We then established a diagnostic algorithm by approaching median viral loads in target populations and evaluated the limit of detection of each test using the PCR cycle threshold values. A field performance evaluation including a clinical validation and a user-friendliness assessment was then conducted on the antigen rapid tests in point-of-care settings (general practitioners and emergency rooms) for outpatients who were symptomatic for <7 days. Automated antigen dosing was trialed for the screening of asymptomatic inpatients. Results: Our diagnostic algorithm proposed to test recently symptomatic patients using rapid antigen tests, asymptomatic patients using automated tests, and patients requiring immediate admission using molecular point-of-care tests. Accordingly, the conventional reverse transcription PCR was kept as a second line tool. In this setting, antigen rapid tests yielded an overall sensitivity of 83.3% (not significantly different between the four assays) while the use of automated antigen dosing would have spared 93.5% of asymptomatic inpatient screening PCRs. Conclusion: Using tests not considered the "gold standard" for COVID-19 diagnosis on well-defined target populations allowed for the optimization of their intrinsic performances, widening the scale of our testing arsenal while sparing molecular resources for more seriously ill patients.

The Acquisition of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria in Patients Admitted to COVID-19 Intensive Care Units: A Monocentric Retrospective Case Control Study.

Whether the risk of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB) acquisition in the intensive care unit (ICU) is modified by the COVID-19 crisis is unknown. In this single center case control study, we measured the rate of MDRB acquisition in patients admitted in COVID-19 ICU and compared it with patients admitted in the same ICU for subarachnoid hemorrhage (controls) matched 1:1 on length of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation. All patients were systematically and repeatedly screened for MDRB carriage. We compared the rate of MDRB acquisition in COVID-19 patients and in control using a competing risk analysis. Of note, although we tried to match COVID-19 patients with septic shock patients, we were unable due to the longer stay of COVID-19 patients. Among 72 patients admitted to the COVID-19 ICUs, 33% acquired 31 MDRB during ICU stay. The incidence density of MDRB acquisition was 30/1000 patient days. Antimicrobial therapy and exposure time were associated with higher rate of MDRB acquisition. Among the 72 SAH patients, 21% acquired MDRB, with an incidence density was 18/1000 patient days. The septic patients had more comorbidities and a greater number of previous hospitalizations than the COVID-19 patients. The incidence density of MDRB acquisition was 30/1000 patient days. The association between COVID-19 and MDRB acquisition (compared to control) risk did not reach statistical significance in the multivariable competing risk analysis (sHR 1.71 (CI 95% 0.93-3.21)). Thus, we conclude that, despite strong physical isolation, acquisition rate of MDRB in ICU patients was at least similar during the COVID-19 first wave compared to previous period.

Development and Potential Usefulness of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip Diagnostic Assay in a Pandemic Context.

Introduction: COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, an immunochromatographic (ICT) assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen on nasopharyngeal specimen, has been developed to identify positive COVID-19 patients allowing prompt clinical and quarantine decisions. In this original research article, we describe the conception, the analytical and clinical performances as well as the risk management of implementing the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip in a diagnostic decision algorithm. Materials and Methods: Development of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip resulted in a ready-to-use ICT assay based on a membrane technology with colloidal gold nanoparticles using monoclonal antibodies directed against the SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 highly conserved nucleoprotein antigen. Four hundred observations were recorded for the analytical performance study and thirty tests were analyzed for the cross-reactivity study. The clinical performance study was performed in a retrospective multi-centric evaluation on aliquots of 328 nasopharyngeal samples. COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip results were compared with qRT-PCR as golden standard for COVID-19 diagnostics. Results: In the analytical performance study, the reproducibility showed a between-observer disagreement of 1.7%, a robustness of 98%, an overall satisfying user friendliness and no cross-reactivity with other virus-infected nasopharyngeal samples. In the clinical performance study performed in three different clinical laboratories during the ascendant phase of the epidemiological curve, we found an overall sensitivity and specificity of 57.6 and 99.5%, respectively with an accuracy of 82.6%. The cut-off of the ICT was found at CT <22. User-friendliness analysis and risk management assessment through Ishikawa diagram demonstrate that COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip may be implemented in clinical laboratories according to biosafety recommendations. Conclusion: The COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip represents a promising rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for the first-line diagnosis of COVID-19 in 15 min at the peak of the pandemic. Its role in the proposed diagnostic algorithm is complementary to the currently-used molecular techniques.