Objectives Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals’ characteristics providing best performance. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. Results Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0–91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1–100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7–93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4–100). For individuals presenting with fever 1–5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0). Conclusions We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.

BackgroundAntigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.MethodsWe performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs.FindingsBetween October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The Panbio™Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0–91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1–100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7–93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4–100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%.InterpretationWe provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.FundingFoundation of Innovative Diagnostics (FIND), Fondation privée des HUG, Pictet Charitable Foundation.

This study aims to assess the immunological response and impact on virological control of the mRNA vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among people living with HIV (PLWH). In this single-center observational study, all PLWH were offered vaccination with mRNA1273 or BNT162b2. Both anti-N and anti-S1-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies were measured together with HIV-1 RNA levels after the first dose (M0) and then at 1 (M1), 2 (M2) and 6 (M6) months later. A total of 131 individuals (median age: 54 years [IQR: 47.0-60.5]; male: 70.2%; median baseline CD4 T-cell: 602/µl [IQR 445.0-825.5]; median nadir CD4 T-cells 223/µl [IQR 111.0-330.0]) were included. All participants were positive for anti-RBD antibodies at 30 days, 60 days and 6 months after the first dose, with no statistical difference between those with HIV-1 RNA below or >20 copies/ml. HIV-1 RNA data were collected for 128 patients at baseline and 30 days after the first dose; for 124 individuals, 30 days after the second dose; and for 83 patients, 6 months after the first dose. Nineteen (14.8%) of 128 had detectable HIV-1 RNA (>20 copies/ml) at M0, 13/128 (10.2%) at M1 (among which 5 were newly detectable), 15/124 (12.1%) at M2 (among which 5 were newly detectable), and 8/83 (9.6%) at M6. No serious adverse effects were reported. All participants elicited antibodies after two doses of mRNA vaccines, with only a minor impact on HIV-1 RNA levels over a 6-month period.

Background & aims: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major organizational challenges to healthcare systems concerning staff, material and bed availability. Nutrition was not a priority in the intensive care unit (ICU) at the beginning of the pandemic with the need for simplified protocols. We aimed to assess the impact of a simplified nutritional protocol for critically ill COVID-19 patients during the pandemic first wave. Methods: We included all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections, admitted to the ICU of the Geneva University Hospitals for at least 4 days from March 9 to May 19, 2020. Data on the route and solution of nutritional therapy, prescribed and received volume, calorie and protein intake, amount of insulin, propofol and glucose administered were collected daily during the entire ICU stay. We compared nutritional outcomes between patients admitted to the ICU before and after implementing the simplified nutritional protocol using unpaired t-test. Results: Out of 119 patients, 48 were hospitalized in the ICU before, 47 across and 24 after the implementation of the nutritional protocol. The mean age was 63.2 (±12.7) years and 76% were men without significant difference between before and after group. The nutritional protocol implementation led to an increase in caloric intake (1070 vs. 1357 kcal/day, p ¼ 0.018) and in the percentage of days within 80 e100% of the energy target (11 vs. 20%, p ¼ 0.021). The protein debt decreased significantly from 48 g/day to 37 g/day (p ¼ 0.015). No significant difference in the percentage of days within the protein target (80 e100%) was observed. Conclusions: Calorie and protein coverage improved after the implementation of the simplified nutritional protocol in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of such an approach on patients' clinical outcomes.