ABSTRACT
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) represents a promising therapeutic tool under study for several purposes and is currently applied to the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. However, since the use of fresh stool was affected by several issues linked to donor screening, the development of a frozen stool bank is a reliable option to standardize FMT procedures. Nevertheless, different environmental factors impact microbial viability. Herein, we report the effect of different thawing temperatures and storage conditions on bacterial suspensions in the FMT procedure. In total, 20 stool samples were divided into aliquots and tested across a combination of different storing periods (15, 30; 90 days) and thawing procedures (4 °C overnight, room temperature for 1 h; 37 °C for 5 min). Focusing on storage time, our data showed a significant reduction in viability for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria after thawing for 15 days, while no further reductions were observed until after 90 days. Instead, among the different thawing procedures, no significant differences were observed for aerobic bacteria, while for anaerobes, thawing at 37 °C for 5 min was more effective in preserving the bacterial viability. In conclusion, the frozen fecal microbiota remained viable for at least three months, with an excellent recovery rate in all three thawing conditions.
ABSTRACT
Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement with the manufacturer's specifications. Our study compared the clinical performances of two microfluidic rapid antigen tests towards a molecular assay, starting from positive samples. A total of 151 swabs collected at the Microbiology and Virology Laboratory of A.O. "SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo" (Alessandria, Italy) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously tested to evaluate accuracy, specificity, and agreement with the RT-qPCR results. Both assays showed an overall agreement of 100% for negative specimens, while positive accuracy comprised between 45.10% and 54.90%. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the greatest correlation between the antigenic and molecular assays was observed for the subset with high viral load (18/19, 94.74%), while it dramatically decreased for other subsets. Moreover, the ability to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and Flu provides an added value and could be addressed in an epidemic context. However, an in-house validation should be performed due to differences observed in performance declared by manufacturers and those actually obtained.
