Challenges and costs of donor screening for fecal microbiota transplantations.

BACKGROUND: The increasing interest to perform and investigate the efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has generated an urge for feasible donor screening. We report our experience with stool donor recruitment, screening, follow-up, and associated costs in the context of clinical FMT trials. METHODS: Potential stool donors, aged between 18-65 years, underwent a stepwise screening process starting with an extensive questionnaire followed by feces and blood investigations. When eligible, donors were rescreened for MDROs and SARS-CoV-2 every 60-days, and full rescreening every 4-6 months. The costs to find and retain a stool donor were calculated. RESULTS: From January 2018 to August 2021, 393 potential donors underwent prescreening, of which 202 (51.4%) did not proceed primarily due to loss to follow-up, medication use, or logistic reasons (e.g. COVID-19 measures). 191 potential donors filled in the questionnaire, of which 43 (22.5%) were excluded. The remaining 148 candidates underwent parasitology screening: 91 (61.5%) were excluded, mostly due to Dientamoeba fragilis and/or high amounts of Blastocystis spp. After additional feces investigations 18/57 (31.6%) potential donors were excluded (mainly for presence of Helicobacter Pylori and ESBL-producing organisms). One donor failed serum testing. Overall, 38 out of 393 (10%) potential donors were enrolled. The median participation time of active stool donors was 13 months. To recruit 38 stool donors, €64.112 was spent. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of stool donors for FMT is challenging. In our Dutch cohort, failed eligibility of potential donors was often caused by the presence of the protozoa Dientamoeba fragilis and Blastocystis spp.. The exclusion of potential donors that carry these protozoa, especially Blastocystis spp., is questionable and deserves reconsideration. High-quality donor screening is associated with substantial costs.

Head-to-head validation of six immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may help to diagnose COVID-19. Head-to-head validation of different types of immunoassays in well-characterized cohorts of hospitalized patients remains needed. METHODS: We validated three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) (Liaison, Elecsys, and Abbott) and one single molecule array assay (SIMOA) (Quanterix) for automated analyzers, one rapid immunoassay RIA (AllTest), and one ELISA (Wantai) in parallel in first samples from 126 PCR confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients and 158 pre-COVID-19 patients. Specificity of the AllTest was also tested in 106 patients with confirmed parasitic and dengue virus infections. Specificity of the Wantai assay was not tested due to limitations in sample volumes. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity in first samples was 70.6 % for the Liaison, 71.4 % for the Elecsys, 75.4 % for the Abbott, 70.6 % for the Quanterix, 77.8 % for the AllTest, and 88.9 % for the Wantai assay, respectively. Sensitivity was between 77.4 % (Liaison) and 94.0 % (Wantai) after 10 dpso. No false positive results were observed for the Elecsys and Abbott assays. Specificity was 91.1 % for the Quanterix, 96.2 % for the Liaison, and 98.1 % for the AllTest assay, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that low sensitivity of all immunoassays limits their use early after onset of illness in diagnosing COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. After 10 dpso, the Wantai ELISA has a relatively high sensitivity, followed by the point-of-care AllTest RIA that compares favorably with automated analyzer immunoassays.