Reduced sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 variant Delta to antibody neutralization.

The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617 lineage was identified in October 2020 in India1-5. Since then, it has become dominant in some regions of India and in the UK, and has spread to many other countries6. The lineage includes three main subtypes (B1.617.1, B.1.617.2 and B.1.617.3), which contain diverse mutations in the N-terminal domain (NTD) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that may increase the immune evasion potential of these variants. B.1.617.2-also termed the Delta variant-is believed to spread faster than other variants. Here we isolated an infectious strain of the Delta variant from an individual with COVID-19 who had returned to France from India. We examined the sensitivity of this strain to monoclonal antibodies and to antibodies present in sera from individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as convalescent individuals) or who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, and then compared this strain with other strains of SARS-CoV-2. The Delta variant was resistant to neutralization by some anti-NTD and anti-RBD monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab, and these antibodies showed impaired binding to the spike protein. Sera collected from convalescent individuals up to 12 months after the onset of symptoms were fourfold less potent against the Delta variant relative to the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7). Sera from individuals who had received one dose of the Pfizer or the AstraZeneca vaccine had a barely discernible inhibitory effect on the Delta variant. Administration of two doses of the vaccine generated a neutralizing response in 95% of individuals, with titres three- to fivefold lower against the Delta variant than against the Alpha variant. Thus, the spread of the Delta variant is associated with an escape from antibodies that target non-RBD and RBD epitopes of the spike protein.

Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody tests on capillary whole blood samples from the fingertip.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2) is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, point-of-care (POC) tests have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the performance of two POC tests, COVID-PRESTO® and COVID-DUO®, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR (real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction). METHODS: RT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orléans, France). Capillary whole blood (CWB) samples from the fingertip taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with POC tests. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated. RESULTS: Among 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with POC tests were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both POC tests. In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n = 238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO® and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO® (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO® test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO® test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days). CONCLUSION: COVID-PRESTO® and DUO® POC tests turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with CWB sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.

Case Report: Co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza H1N1 in a patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome and a pulmonary sarcoidosis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and has been a global public health concern. Co-infection of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory syndrome has been rarely reported. We report coinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and 2009 H1N1 Influenza strain in a French patient with pneumonia leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome.  The patient also had a medical history of pulmonary sarcoidosis with a restrictive ventilatory syndrome, which would be a supplementary risk to develop a poor outcomes. This case highlights the possible coinfection of two severe SARS-CoV-2 and influenza H1N1 viruses, which presents a higher risk to extend the care duration. The overlapping clinical features of the two respiratory syndromes is a challenge, and awareness is required to recommend an early differential diagnosis.

Performance comparison of new Veris and Xpert random access HIV-1 RNA quantification assays.

BACKGROUND: Recent systems for Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 (HIV-1) viral load (VL) monitoring allow one-by-one analysis and fast turn-around-time for results. VL measurement on two rapid recently commercialized systems, GeneXpert (Cepheid) and Veris (Beckman Coulter) was compared to classical methods. METHODS: Plasma specimen from HIV-1 (group M) positive patients (n = 129) initially quantified with Abbott RealTime HIV-1 and Generic HIV-VL Biocentric assays were retrospectively tested with GeneXpert and Veris. RESULTS: Valid results on all techniques were obtained for 116/129 specimens composed of 89 Abbott quantifiable VL (38 B, 51 non-B subtypes) [range: 2.09-7.20 log cp/mL] and 27 plasma (9 B, 18 non-B) with Abbott-VL below the limit of quantification (LLQ). All techniques showed good correlation and agreement with a lowest Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.86. Compared to Abbott, the mean bias was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.25-0.45), 0.44 (0.36-0.53) and - 0.04 (- 0.13-0.05) for Biocentric, Beckman and Cepheid, respectively. A difference over 0.5 log cp/mL between VL-quantification of the same sample was observed for 19, 9 and 6 samples with Biocentric, Beckman and Cepheid, respectively. No influence of HIV-1 subtypes on VL was identified. Among 29 samples below LLQ on Abbott, only one was detected and quantified with the Veris assay (38 cp/mL), none with Cepheid. CONCLUSION: Both random access systems from Cepheid and Beckman appear well designed for quantifying plasma HIV-1 VL, are easy to handle, fast and fully automated. The slight observed differences suggest to follow the current guidelines recommending the use of the same technique over time for patient viral load monitoring.

Epidemiology of Trichophyton verrucosum infection in Rennes University Hospital, France: A 12-year retrospective study.

Trichophyton verrucosum is a zoophilic dermatophyte, known as a causative agent of inflammatory mycoses of the skin and the scalp in humans. In this study, we reviewed all cases of T. verrucosum infection diagnosed in our laboratory over a 12-year period, to determine epidemiological and clinical characteristics. Among 18,340 samples analyzed, 5,186 cultured positive with dermatophytes (2674 patients), of which 64 samples (41 patients) were positive for T. verrucosum. Our data show that there was a strong influence of age on the type of lesion, with children and adults presenting more frequently with tinea capitis and skin infections, respectively (P < .0001). Infection of children and adults resulted more frequently from indirect and direct exposure to cattle, respectively (P < .01). We observed a marked increase of cases over the last 4 years, with a correlation of the number of cases and the mean annual rainfall (P < .05), suggesting that increasing humidity favors cattle infection, and thereby, human infection. Whether this increase is the consequence of climate changes remains to be determined but should be considered.