Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal and oropharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce. METHODS: The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.

Clinical outcomes of a short-term family-focused intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation-A randomised clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate a family-focused intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in addition to conventional care and to establish its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety, depression, AF symptoms, and family support. BACKGROUND: AF is a widespread heart disease affecting the well-being of patients and their family members physically and psychologically. Supporting patients and their family members could potentially facilitate regaining family strength and improve HRQoL. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed AF were randomised to standard care or additional family-focused intervention with change in global score of the Atrial Fibrillation Quality of Life Questionnaire (AFEQT) as primary outcome after six months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score, the European Heart Rhythm Association score, the Ice Expressive Family Functioning Questionnaire, and the Ice Family-Perceived Support Questionnaire (ICE-FPSQ). RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients received standard care (n = 35) or family focused intervention (n = 33). The median change at the six-month follow-up on the global AFEQT score was 4.17 (-1.46-9.17) in the control group and 5.83 (-2.5-30) in the intervention group, yielding a median difference of -1.67 (p = 0.500). Change in ICE-FPSQ showed significant positive scores in favour of intervention (p < 0.001); other secondary outcome changes were non-significant. CONCLUSION: The family-focused intervention had a small positive but non-significant effect on HRQoL compared to standard care. To address the impact of AF on the patients and family members seems to improve anxiety and depression scores and perceived family support.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%. CONCLUSION: The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT. FUNDING: The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

Incidence of Positive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Polymerase Chain Reaction After Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination With up to 8 Months of Follow-up: Real-life Data From the Capital Region of Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are implemented worldwide in efforts to curb the pandemic. This study investigates the risk of a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test following BNT162b2 vaccination in a large real-life population in Denmark. METHODS: Vaccination status and positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results from adults in the Capital Region of Denmark (n = 1 549 488) were obtained from national registries. PCR testing was free and widely available. The number of positive PCR tests per individual at risk was calculated as weekly rates. Time to positive PCR test was modelled using Kaplan-Meier methods and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 1 119 574 individuals received the first dose of BNT162b2 and 1 088 879 received a second dose of BNT162b2. Individuals were followed up to 8.7 months after first dose (median: 5.5 months; interquartile ratio: 4.1-8.7). Rates of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 2-4 months after the second dose were 0.21, 0.33, and 0.36 per 1000 individuals per week at risk for July, August, and September, respectively. Four or more months after the second dose, the rates were 0.56, 0.76, and 0.53 per 1000 individuals per week at risk for July, August, and September, respectively. HR of SARS-CoV-2 infection after the second dose was 0.2 (95% confidence interval, .05-.48; P = .001) for individuals with 8 months' follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine had a low risk of breakthrough infection after up to 8 months of follow-up. However, there was a tendency toward higher rates with longer follow-up.

Social Distancing Policies in the Coronavirus Battle: A Comparison of Denmark and Sweden.

Social distancing measures have been a key component in government strategies to mitigate COVID-19 globally. Based on official documents, this study aimed to identify, compare and analyse public social distancing policy measures adopted in Denmark and Sweden regarding the coronavirus from 1 March 2020 until 1 October 2020. A key difference was the greater emphasis on laws and executive orders (sticks) in Denmark, which allowed the country to adopt many stricter policy measures than Sweden, which relied mostly on general guidelines and recommendations (sermons). The main policy adopters in Denmark were the government and the Danish Parliament, whereas the Public Health Agency issued most policies in Sweden, reflecting a difference in political governance and administrative structure in the two countries. During the study period, Sweden had noticeably higher rates of COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations per 100,000 population than Denmark, yet it is difficult to determine the impact or relative effectiveness of sermons and sticks, particularly with regard to broader and longer-term health, economic and societal effects.

suPAR Cut-Offs for Risk Stratification in Patients With Symptoms of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Elevated soluble urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) is a biomarker associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to investigate the associations between plasma suPAR levels (testing the cut-offs ⩽4, 4-6, and ⩾6 ng/mL) with risk of 14-day mortality, and with the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Observational cohort study of patients presenting with symptoms of COVID-19 at Department of Emergency Medicine, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, Denmark from March 19th, 2020 to April 3rd, 2020. Plasma suPAR was measured using suPARnostic technologies. Patients were followed for development of mechanical ventilation and mortality for 14 days. Validation of our findings were carried out in a similar sized COVID-19 patient cohort from Mikkeli Central Hospital, Finland. RESULTS: Among 386 patients with symptoms of COVID-19, the median (interquartile range) age was 64 years (46-77), 57% were women, median suPAR was 4.0 ng/mL (2.7-5.9). In total, 35 patients (9.1%) died during the 14 days follow-up. Patients with suPAR ⩽4 ng/mL (N = 196; 50.8%) had a low risk of mortality (N = 2; 1.0%; negative predictive value of 99.0%, specificity 55.3%, sensitivity 95.2%, positive predictive value 17.4%). Among patients with suPAR ⩾6 ng/mL (N = 92; 23.8%), 16 died (17.4%). About 99 patients (25.6%) tested positive for SARS CoV-2 and of those 12 (12.1%) developed need for mechanical ventilation. None of the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with suPAR ⩽4 ng/mL (N = 28; 38.8%) needed mechanical ventilation or died. The Mikkeli Central Hospital validation cohort confirmed our findings concerning suPAR cut-offs for risk of development of mechanical ventilation and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and suPAR ⩽4 or ⩾6 ng/mL had low or high risk, respectively, concerning the need for mechanical ventilation or mortality. We suggest cut-offs for identification of risk groups in patients presenting to the ED with symptoms of or confirmed COVID-19.

Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor as a Decision Marker for Early Discharge of Patients with COVID-19 Symptoms in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (The Covid-19 pandemic) strains health care capacity. Better risk stratification, with discharge of patients with a predicted mild disease trajectory, can ease this burden. Elevated blood-soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has previously been shown to be associated with risk of intubation in confirmed COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether point-of-care measures of suPAR in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with symptoms of COVID-19 can identify patients that can be safely discharged. METHODS: Observational cohort study including all patients in the ED with symptoms of COVID-19 from March 19 to April 3, 2020. SuPAR was measured at first presentation. Review of electronic patient records 14 days after admission was used to assess disease trajectory. Primary endpoints were mild, moderate, severe, or very severe trajectory. The predictive value of suPAR, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), C-reactive protein (CRP), and duration of symptoms was calculated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC). RESULTS: Of 386 patients, 171 (44%) had a mild disease trajectory, 79 (20%) a moderate, 63 (16%) a severe, and 73 (19%) a very severe disease trajectory. Low suPAR was a strong marker of mild disease trajectory. Results suggest a cut-off for discharge for suPAR < 2.0 ng/mL if suPAR is used as a single parameter, and <3.0 ng/mL when combined with NEWS ≤ 4 and CRP < 10 mg/L. CONCLUSION: suPAR is a potential biomarker for triage and safe early discharge of patients with COVID-19 symptoms in the ED. suPAR can be used even before SARS-CoV-2 status is known.

Implementing social distancing policy measures in the battle against the coronavirus: protocol of a comparative study of Denmark and Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing policies to ensure physical distance between people have become a crucial strategy in the battle against the spread of the coronavirus. The aim of this project is to analyze and compare social distancing policies implemented in Denmark and Sweden in 2020. Despite many similarities between the two countries, their response to the coronavirus pandemic differed markedly. Whereas authorities in Denmark initiated mandatory regulations and many severe restrictions, Swedish authorities predominantly promoted voluntary recommendations. METHODS: The project is an interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers in Denmark and Sweden with different disciplinary backgrounds. The project is based on a comparative analysis, an approach that attempts to reach conclusions beyond single cases and to explain differences and similarities between objects of analysis and relations between objects against the backdrop of their contextual conditions. Data will be gathered by means of document analysis, qualitative interviews, and a questionnaire survey to address three research questions: (1) What social distancing policies regarding the coronavirus have been formulated and implemented, who are the policymakers behind the policy measures, which implementers are expected to implement the measures, and who are the targets that the measures ultimately seek to influence? (2) How have the social distancing policies and policy measures been justified, and what types of knowledge form the basis for the measures? and (3) What are the differences and similarities in citizens' perceptions of acceptability and compliance with social distancing policy measures in relation to the coronavirus? DISCUSSION: To create a structure for addressing the three research questions, the project applies a theoretical framework informed by the policy and implementation science literatures. The framework consists of five interdependent domains that have an impact on policy implementation: (1) policymakers, (2) policy characteristics, (3) implementers, (4) targets, and (5) policy environment. Details of the framework are provided in the article.