Background: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 are fast, broadly available, and inexpensive. Despite this, reliable clinical performance data from large field studies is sparse. Methods: In a prospective performance evaluation study, RDT from three manufacturers (NADAL®, Panbio™, MEDsan®, conducted on different samples) were compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in 5 068 oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting. Viral load was derived from standardised RT-qPCR Cycle threshold (C t ) values. The data collection period ranged from November 12, 2020 to February 28, 2021. Findings: The sensitivity of RDT compared to RT-qPCR was 42·57% (95% CI 33·38%–52·31%). The specificity was 99·68% (95% CI 99·48%–99·80%). Sensitivity declined with decreasing viral load from 100% in samples with a deduced viral load of ≥10 8 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml to 8·82% in samples with a viral load lower than 10 4 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml. No significant differences in sensitivity or specificity could be observed between samples with and without spike protein variant B.1.1.7. The NPV in the study cohort was 98·84%; the PPV in persons with typical COVID-19 symptoms was 97·37%, and 28·57% in persons without or with atypical symptoms. Interpretation: RDT are a reliable method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons with high viral load. RDT are a valuable addition to RT-qPCR testing, as they reliably detect infectious persons with high viral loads before RT-qPCR results are available.

Background The total incidence of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) in Europe has been declining in recent years; however, a rising incidence due to serogroup W (MenW), predominantly sequence type 11 (ST-11), clonal complex 11 (cc11), was reported in some European countries. Aim The aim of this study was to compile the most recent laboratory surveillance data on MenW IMD from several European countries to assess recent trends in Europe. Methods In this observational, retrospective study, IMD surveillance data collected from 2013–17 by national reference laboratories and surveillance units from 13 European countries were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results The overall incidence of IMD has been stable during the study period. Incidence of MenW IMD per 100,000 population (2013: 0.03; 2014: 0.05; 2015: 0.08; 2016: 0.11; 2017: 0.11) and the proportion of this serogroup among all invasive cases (2013: 5% (116/2,216); 2014: 9% (161/1,761); 2015: 13% (271/2,074); 2016: 17% (388/2,222); 2017: 19% (393/2,112)) continuously increased. The most affected countries were England, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden. MenW was more frequent in older age groups (≥ 45 years), while the proportion in children (< 15 years) was lower than in other age groups. Of the culture-confirmed MenW IMD cases, 80% (615/767) were caused by hypervirulent cc11. Conclusion During the years 2013–17, an increase in MenW IMD, mainly caused by MenW cc11, was observed in the majority of European countries. Given the unpredictable nature of meningococcal spread and the epidemiological potential of cc11, European countries may consider preventive strategies adapted to their contexts.

Anamnestic screening of symptoms and contact history is applied to identify coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on admission. However, asymptomatic and presymptomatic patients remain undetected although the viral load may be high. In this retrospective cohort study, all hospitalized patients who received polymerase chain reaction (PCR) admission testing from March 26th until May 24th, 2020 were included. Data on COVID-19-specific symptoms and contact history to COVID-19 cases were retrospectively extracted from patient files and from contact tracing notes. The compliance to the universal testing protocol was high with 90%.Out of 6940 tested patients, 27 new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infections (0.4%) were detected. Seven of those COVID-19 cases (26% of all new cases) were asymptomatic and had no positive contact history, but were identified through a positive PCR test. The number needed to identify an asymptomatic patient was 425 in the first wave of the epidemic, 1218 in the low incidence phase. The specificity of the method was above 99.9%. Universal PCR testing was highly accepted by staff as demonstrated by high compliance. The costs to detect one asymptomatic case in future studies need to be traded off against the costs and damage caused by potential outbreaks of COVID-19.

Background Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 are fast, broadly available, and inexpensive. Despite this, reliable clinical performance data is sparse. Methods In a prospective performance evaluation study, RDT from three manufacturers (NADAL, Panbio, MEDsan) were compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in 5 068 oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting. Viral load was derived from standardized RT-qPCR Cycle threshold (Ct) values. The data collection period ranged from November 12, 2020 to February 28, 2021. Findings Overall, sensitivity of RDT compared to RT-qPCR was 42.57% (95% CI 33.38%-52.31%), and specificity 99.68% (95% CI 99.48%-99.80%). Sensitivity declined with decreasing viral load from 100% in samples with a deduced viral load of 10^8 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml to 8.82% in samples with a viral load lower than 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml. No significant differences in sensitivity or specificity could be observed between the three manufacturers, or between samples with and without spike protein variant B.1.1.7. The NPV in the study cohort was 98.84%; the PPV in persons with typical COVID-19 symptoms was 97.37%, and 28.57% in persons without or with atypical symptoms. Interpretation RDT are a reliable method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons with high viral load. RDT are a valuable addition to RT-qPCR testing, as they reliably detect infectious persons with high viral loads before RT-qPCR results are available. Funding German Federal Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF), Free State of Bavaria