Diagnostic Accuracy of Procalcitonin upon Emergency Department Admission during SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Procalcitonin is a marker for bacterial diseases and has been used to guide antibiotic prescription. Procalcitonin accuracy, measured at admission, in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), is unknown in the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin to assess the need for antibiotic treatment in patients with CAP presenting to the emergency department during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a real-world diagnostic retrospective accuracy study of procalcitonin in patients admitted to the emergency department. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on procalcitonin results compared to the reference standard of combined microbiological and radiological analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under (AUC) the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated in two analyses: first assessing procalcitonin ability to differentiate microbiologically proven bacteria from viral CAP and then clinically diagnosed bacterial CAP from viral CAP. RESULTS: When using a procalcitonin threshold of 0.5 ng/mL to identify bacterial etiology within patients with CAP, we observed sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 64.1%, and 43% and 82.6%, respectively, in the two analyses. The positive and negative predictive values of a procalcitonin threshold of 0.5 ng/mL to identify patients for whom antibiotics should be advised were 46.4% and 79.7%, and 48.9% and 79% in the two analyses, respectively. The AUC for the two analyses was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.68) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin measured upon admission during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should not guide antibiotic treatment in patients with CAP.

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.

Plasma zinc status and hyperinflammatory syndrome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: An observational study.

Zinc deficiency is associated with impaired antiviral response, cytokine releasing syndrome (CRS), and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Notably, similar complications are being observed during severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. We conducted a prospective, single-center, observational study in a tertiary university hospital (CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels) to address the zinc status, the association between the plasma zinc concentration, development of CRS, and the clinical outcomes in PCR-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. One hundred and thirty-nine eligible patients were included between May 2020 and November 2020 (median age of 65 years [IQR = 54, 77]). Our cohort's median plasma zinc concentration was 57 µg/dL (interquartile range [IQR] = 45, 67) compared to 74 µg/dL (IQR = 64, 84) in the retrospective non-COVID-19 control group (N = 1513; p < 0.001). Markedly, the absolute majority of COVID-19 patients (96%) were zinc deficient (<80 µg/dL). The median zinc concentration was lower in patients with CRS compared to those without CRS (-5 µg/dL; 95% CI = -10.5, 0.051; p = 0.048). Among the tested outcomes, zinc concentration is significantly correlated with only the length of hospital stay (rho = -0.19; p = 0.022), but not with mortality or morbidity. As such, our findings do not support the role of zinc as a robust prognostic marker among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who in our cohort presented a high prevalence of zinc deficiency. It might be more beneficial to explore the role of zinc as a biomarker for assessing the risk of developing a tissue-damaging CRS and predicting outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the early stage of the disease.

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.

Monitoring antibody response following SARS-CoV-2 infection: diagnostic efficiency of 4 automated immunoassays.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion is important for epidemiological studies as well as contact tracing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 was examined in 111 patients with a positive qRT-PCR. Seroconversion was assessed using the Elecsys from Roche, the Liaison S1/S2 IgG from Diasorin, the IgG and IgA from Euroimmun, as well as the VIDAS IgG and IgM. Specificity was estimated based on the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 96 residual samples collected during a non-pandemic period. RESULTS: The highest overall sensitivity for detecting seroconversion was obtained using the Elecsys (81.1%), the Euroimmun with a combined detection of IgG/IgA (86.5%), and the VIDAS with a simultaneous measurement of IgG/IgM (78.4%).The Elecsys and the VIDAS IgG/IgM demonstrated a specificity as well as a positive predictive value of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The Elecsys and the VIDAS methods with a combination of IgG/IgM measurement demonstrated a high sensitivity with no false positive results.