Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during a large, live, indoor gathering (SPRING): a non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mass indoor gatherings were banned in early 2020 to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to assess, under controlled conditions, whether infection rates among attendees at a large, indoor gathering event would be similar to those in non-attendees, given implementation of a comprehensive prevention strategy including antigen-screening within 3 days, medical mask wearing, and optimised ventilation. METHODS: The non-inferiority, prospective, open-label, randomised, controlled SPRING trial was done on attendees at a live indoor concert held in the Accor Arena on May 29, 2021 in Paris, France. Participants, aged 18-45 years, recruited via a dedicated website, had no comorbidities, COVID-19 symptoms, or recent case contact, and had had a negative rapid antigen diagnostic test within 3 days before the concert. Participants were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to the experimental group (attendees) or to the control group (non-attendees). The allocation sequence was computer-generated by means of permuted blocks of sizes three, six, or nine, with no stratification. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients who were SARS-CoV-2-positive by RT-PCR test on self-collected saliva 7 days post-gathering in the per-protocol population (non-inferiority margin <0·35%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04872075. FINDINGS: Between May 11 and 25, 2021, 18 845 individuals registered on the dedicated website, and 10 953 were randomly selected for a pre-enrolment on-site visit. Among 6968 who kept the appointment and were screened, 6678 participants were randomly assigned (4451 were assigned to be attendees and 2227 to be non-attendees; median age 28 years; 59% women); 88% (3917) of attendees and 87% (1947) of non-attendees complied with follow-up requirements. The day 7 RT-PCR was positive for eight of the 3917 attendees (observed incidence, 0·20%; 95% CI 0·09-0·40) and three of the 1947 non-attendees (0·15%; 0·03-0·45; absolute difference, 95% CI -0·26% to 0·28%), findings that met the non-inferiority criterion for the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: Participation in a large, indoor, live gathering without physical distancing was not associated with increased SARS-CoV-2-transmission risk, provided a comprehensive preventive intervention was implemented. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Evaluation of a saliva molecular point of care for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care.

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97%, respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference tests, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in crude saliva samples with an RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number: NCT04578509.

Accuracy of saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in community screening: a multicentric cohort study.

Nasopharyngeal sampling for nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the standard diagnostic test of coronavirus disease 2019. Our objectives were to assess, in real-life conditions, the diagnostic accuracy of a nasopharyngeal point-of-care antigen (Ag) test and of saliva NAAT for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in ambulatory care. This was a prospective cohort study from 19 October through 18 December 2020 in two community COVID-19 screening centers in Paris, France. Two nasopharyngeal swabs and one saliva sample were simultaneously collected. Diagnostic accuracies of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of three saliva NAAT methods were assessed as compared to nasopharyngeal NAAT. A total of 1452 ambulatory children and adults were included. Overall, 129/1443 (9%) participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal NAAT (102/564 [18%] in symptomatic and 27/879 [3%] in asymptomatic participants). Sensitivity was 94%, 23%, 96%, and 94% for the three different protocols of saliva NAAT and for the nasopharyngeal Ag test, respectively. Estimates of specificity were above 95% for all methods. Diagnostic accuracy was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of saliva NAAT is similar to that of nasopharyngeal NAAT, subject to compliance with specific protocols for saliva. Registration number: NCT04578509.

Multicenter comparison of the Cobas 6800 system with the RealStar RT-PCR kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: RT-PCR testing is crucial in the diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of reliable and comparable PCR assays is a cornerstone to allow use of different PCR assays depending on the local equipment. In this work, we provide a comparison of the Cobas® (Roche) and the RealStar® assay (Altona). METHODS: Assessment of the two assays was performed prospectively in three reference Parisians hospitals, using 170 clinical samples. They were tested with the Cobas® assay, selected to obtain a distribution of cycle threshold (Ct) as large as possible, and tested with the RealStar assay with three largely available extraction platforms: QIAsymphony (Qiagen), MagNAPure (Roche) and NucliSENS-easyMag (BioMérieux). RESULTS: Overall, the agreement (positive for at least one gene) was 76 %. This rate differed considerably depending on the Cobas Ct values for gene E: below 35 (n = 91), the concordance was 99 %. Regarding the positive Ct values, linear regression analysis showed a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.88 and the Deming regression line revealed a strong correlation with a slope of 1.023 and an intercept of -3.9. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the mean difference (Cobas® minus RealStar®) was + 3.3 Ct, with a SD of + 2.3 Ct. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison, both RealStar® and Cobas® assays provided comparable qualitative results and a high correlation when both tests were positive. Discrepancies exist after 35 Ct and varied depending on the extraction system used for the RealStar® assay, probably due to a low viral load close to the detection limit of both assays.