BackgroundIn 2013, the French Health Authority approved the use of HIV self-tests in pharmacies for the general public. This screening tool will allow an increase in the number of screenings and a reduction in the delay between infection and diagnosis, thus reducing the risk of further infections. We previously compared 5 HIV-self test candidates (4 oral fluid and one whole blood) and demonstrated that the whole blood HIV test exhibited the optimal level of performance (sensitivity/specificity). We studied the practicability of an easy-to-use finger-stick whole blood HIV self-test “autotest VIH®”, when used in the general public.Methods and MaterialsThis multicenter cross-sectional study involved 411 participants from the Parisian region (AIDES and HF association) between April and July 2014 and was divided into 2 separate studies: one evaluating the capability of participants to obtain an interpretable result using only the information notice, and a second evaluating the interpretation of test results, using a provided chart.ResultsA total of 411 consenting participants, 264 in the first study and 147 in the second, were included. All participants were over 18 years of age. In the first study, 99.2% of the 264 participants correctly administered the auto-test, and 21.2% needed, upon their request, telephone assistance. Ninety-two percent of participants responded that the test was easy/very easy to perform, and 93.5% did not find any difficulty obtaining a sufficient good quantity of blood. In the second study, 98.1% of the 147 participants correctly interpreted the results. The reading/interpretation errors concerned the negative (2.1%) or the indeterminate (3.3%) auto-tests.ConclusionsThe success rate of handling and interpretation of this self-test is very satisfactory, demonstrating its potential for use by the general public and its utility to increase the number of opportunities to detect HIV patients.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has become a major public health issue worldwide. Developing and evaluating rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic tests is a high priority. The current study was designed to assess the diagnostic performance of an antigen-based rapid detection test (COVID-VIRO ® ) in a real-life setting. Two nasopharyngeal specimens of symptomatic or asymptomatic adult patients hospitalized in the Infectious Diseases Department or voluntarily accessing the COVID-19 Screening Department of the Regional Hospital of Orléans, France, were concurrently collected. The diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of COVID VIRO® results were compared to those of real-time reversetranscriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results. A subset of patients underwent an additional oropharyngeal and/or saliva swab for rapid testing. A total of 121 patients confirmed to be infected and 127 patients having no evidence of recent or ongoing infection were enrolled for a total of 248 nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Overall, the COVID-VIRO® sensitivity was 96.7% (CI, 93.5%-99.9%). In asymptomatic patients, symptomatic patients having symptoms for more than 4 days and those with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold value ≥ 32, the sensitivities were 100%, 95.8%, and 91.9%, respectively. The concordance between RT-qPCR and COVID VIRO® rapid test results was 100% for the 127 patients with no SARS-CoV-2 infection. The COVID-VIRO® test had 100% specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%, which are better than the recommendations set forth by the WHO (specificity ≥ 97%-100%, sensitivity ≥ 80%). These rapid tests may be particularly useful for large-scale screening in emergency departments, low-resource settings, and airports.

BackgroundDolutegravir is a powerful, well-tolerated integrase inhibitor with a high genetic barrier to resistance and may thus constitute the backbone of lightened regimens.MethodsThis was a monocentric, retrospective study. HIV-1-infected patients receiving dolutegravir as monotherapy (mDGV) or dual therapy (dDGV) were systematically identified. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who maintained undetectable (<50 copies/mL) plasma HIV RNA [plasma viral load (PVL)].ResultsWe identified 21 patients on mDGV (50 mg/day) and 31 on dDGV (50 or 100 mg/day, with atazanavir ± ritonavir, n = 12; rilpivirine, n = 11; maraviroc, n = 3; lamivudine, n = 3; darunavir/ritonavir, n = 1; or abacavir, n = 1). All of the patients were treatment experienced and 48% had experienced at least one virological failure. The baseline characteristics were as follows (for the mDGV/dDGV patients, respectively): 5%/29% had a history of AIDS; the median (IQR) highest PVL was 4.5 (4.3–5.5)/5.3 (4.7–5.6) log copies/mL; the median (IQR) nadir CD4+ count was 310 (280–468)/199 (134–281) cells/mm3; 100% had undetectable PVL before the mDGV for a median (IQR) duration of 5.9 (3.5–9.9) years/81% had undetectable PVL before the dDGV for a median (IQR) duration of 3.7 (1.4–8.3) years; and the median (IQR) HIV DNA level was 2.7 (2.1–3.1)/2.9 (2.7–3) log copies/106 PBMCs. At the last follow-up visit, 100% and 97% of patients showed undetectable PVL following mDGV and dDGV, respectively [median (IQR) follow-up of 32 (29–45) and 50 (30–74) weeks, respectively].ConclusionsIn our experience, dolutegravir-based lightened regimens provided a high proportion of viral suppression, even in highly treatment-experienced patients.

S. Tubiana). y Bruno Hoen and Xavier Duval contributed equally. z The members of COMBAT study group are listed at the Acknowledgments section. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Clinical Microbiology and Infectionj o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . c l i n i c a l m i c r o b i o l o g y a n d i n f e c t i o n . c o m

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 1 st 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.