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.

Background Tenofovir and emtricitabine interfere with the SARS CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA)-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Several cohorts reported that people treated by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine are less likely to develop SARS CoV-2 infection and related severe COVID-19. Methods We conducted a pilot randomized, open-label, controlled, phase 2 trial at two hospitals in France. Eligible patients were consecutive outpatients (aged ≥18 years) with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 7 days or less. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (2 pills on day 1 followed by 1 pill per day on days 2–7) or the standard of care. The primary and secondary endpoints were SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance from baseline assessed by cycle threshold (Ct) RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab collected at day 4 and day 7, respectively. A higher Ct corresponds to a lower SARS CoV-2 viral burden. Other endpoints were the time to recovery and the number of adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04685512. Findings From November, 20 th 2020 to March, 19 th 2021, 60 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (30 to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine and 30 to standard of care). The median number of days from symptom onset to inclusion was 4 days (IQR 3–5) in both groups. Amongst patients who received tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, the difference from standard of care in the increase in Ct RT-PCR from baseline was 2.3 (95% confidence interval [-0.6 to 5.2], p = 0.13) at day 4 and 2.9 (95% CI [0.1 to 5.2], p = 0.044) at day 7. At day 7, 6/30 in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine group and 3/30 in the standard of care group reported no COVID-related symptoms. Adverse events included 11 cases of gastrointestinal side effects (grade ≤ 2), three of which leaded to drug discontinuation. Three patients had COVID-19 related hospitalisation, no participant died. Interpretation In this pilot study of outpatients adult with recent non-severe COVID-19, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine appeared to accelerate the natural clearance of nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral burden. These findings support the conduct of larger trials of tenofovir-based therapies for the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19. Funding No external funding.

To control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) epidemics, it is necessary to have easy‐to‐use, reliable diagnostic tests available. The nasopharyngeal sampling method being often uncomfortable, nasal sampling could prove to be a viable alternative to the reference sampling method. We performed a multicentre, prospective validation study of the COVID‐VIRO® test, using a nasal swab sampling method, in a point‐of‐care setting. In addition, we performed a multicentre, prospective, and usability study to validate the use of the rapid antigen nasal diagnostic test by laypersons. In March 2021, 239 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were included in the validation study. Compared with reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasopharyngeal samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the COVID‐VIRO® Antigen test combined with a nasal sampling method were evaluated as 96.88% and 100%, respectively. A total of 101 individuals were included in the usability study. Among these, 99% of the participants rated the instructions material as good, 98% of the subjects executed the test procedure well, and 98% of the participants were able to correctly interpret the test results. This study validates the relevance of COVID‐VIRO® as a diagnostic tool from nasal specimens as well as its usability in the general population. COVID‐VIRO® diagnostic performances and ease of use make it suitable for widespread utilization.

A case of erythema multiforme major with multiple mucosal involvements in COVID-19 infection Dear Editor, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection owing to the Severe Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that, in the worst case, can lead to fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome. It was first identified in

The control of the COVID‐19 epidemics has been one global health priorities for the last two years. To that end, more reliable and easy‐to‐use, regardless of age, diagnostic tests are necessary. Considering that, we evaluated an innovative two‐step self‐test, the AAZ COVID‐VIRO ALL IN®, switching from the classic nasal swab to a nasal sponge. We performed a multicentre study, on 124 adults and children, in a point‐of‐care setting. Sensitivity, specificity and overall acceptance of the COVID‐VIRO ALL IN® self‐test compared to RT‐PCR on nasopharyngeal samples were of 93.0%, 100% and 97.5%, respectively. We then performed a multicentre, usability study to evaluate the ease of use of COVID‐VIRO ALL IN® on 68 laypersons adults. A vast majority of participants correctly executed and interpreted the test. The usability was then specifically investigated on 40 children and teenagers, comparing COVID‐VIRO® first generation to the new COVID‐VIRO ALL IN®. They all found COVID‐VIRO ALL IN® more comfortable and easier to use. For young children, the new self‐test seems safer (less risk of trauma, no liquid exposure), and faster than saliva‐based RT‐PCR. Moreover, the COVID‐VIRO ALL IN® can easily be adapted as a multiplex self‐test for other respiratory viruses, opening new perspectives of simultaneous, rapid and massive detection of respiratory infections, especially among vulnerable populations like children and elderly people. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.