Introduction: COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, an immunochromatographic (ICT) assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen on nasopharyngeal specimen, has been developed to identify positive COVID-19 patients allowing prompt clinical and quarantine decisions. In this original research article, we describe the conception, the analytical and clinical performances as well as the risk management of implementing the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip in a diagnostic decision algorithm. Materials and Methods: Development of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip resulted in a ready-to-use ICT assay based on a membrane technology with colloidal gold nanoparticles using monoclonal antibodies directed against the SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 highly conserved nucleoprotein antigen. Four hundred observations were recorded for the analytical performance study and thirty tests were analyzed for the crossreactivity study. The clinical performance study was performed in a retrospective multicentric evaluation on aliquots of 328 nasopharyngeal samples. COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip results were compared with qRT-PCR as golden standard for COVID-19 diagnostics. Results: In the analytical performance study, the reproducibility showed a between-observer disagreement of 1.7%, a robustness of 98%, an overall satisfying user friendliness and no cross-reactivity with other virus-infected nasopharyngeal samples. In the clinical performance study performed in three different clinical laboratories during the ascendant phase of the epidemiological curve, we found an overall sensitivity and Mertens et al. Respi-Strip Assay for Diagnosing COVID-19 specificity of 57.6 and 99.5%, respectively with an accuracy of 82.6%. The cutoff of the ICT was found at CT < 22. User-friendliness analysis and risk management assessment through Ishikawa diagram demonstrate that COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip may be implemented in clinical laboratories according to biosafety recommendations. Conclusion: The COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip represents a promising rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for the first-line diagnosis of COVID-19 in 15 min at the peak of the pandemic. Its role in the proposed diagnostic algorithm is complementary to the currently-used molecular techniques.

Whether the risk of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB) acquisition in the intensive care unit (ICU) is modified by the COVID-19 crisis is unknown. In this single center case control study, we measured the rate of MDRB acquisition in patients admitted in COVID-19 ICU and compared it with patients admitted in the same ICU for subarachnoid hemorrhage (controls) matched 1:1 on length of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation. All patients were systematically and repeatedly screened for MDRB carriage. We compared the rate of MDRB acquisition in COVID-19 patients and in control using a competing risk analysis. Of note, although we tried to match COVID-19 patients with septic shock patients, we were unable due to the longer stay of COVID-19 patients. Among 72 patients admitted to the COVID-19 ICUs, 33% acquired 31 MDRB during ICU stay. The incidence density of MDRB acquisition was 30/1000 patient days. Antimicrobial therapy and exposure time were associated with higher rate of MDRB acquisition. Among the 72 SAH patients, 21% acquired MDRB, with an incidence density was 18/1000 patient days. The septic patients had more comorbidities and a greater number of previous hospitalizations than the COVID-19 patients. The incidence density of MDRB acquisition was 30/1000 patient days. The association between COVID-19 and MDRB acquisition (compared to control) risk did not reach statistical significance in the multivariable competing risk analysis (sHR 1.71 (CI 95% 0.93–3.21)). Thus, we conclude that, despite strong physical isolation, acquisition rate of MDRB in ICU patients was at least similar during the COVID-19 first wave compared to previous period.

Introduction: We assessed the usefulness of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) values trends produced by the LHUB-ULB (a consolidated microbiology laboratory located in Brussels, Belgium) for monitoring the epidemic's dynamics at local and national levels and for improving forecasting models.Methods: SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Ct values produced from April 1, 2020, to May 15, 2021, were compared with national COVID-19 confirmed cases notifications according to their geographical and time distribution. These Ct values were evaluated against both a phase diagram predicting the number of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care and an age-structured model estimating COVID-19 prevalence in Belgium.Results: Over 155,811 RT-PCR performed, 12,799 were positive and 7,910 Ct values were available for analysis. The 14-day median Ct values were negatively correlated with the 14-day mean daily positive tests with a lag of 17 days. In addition, the 14-day mean daily positive tests in LHUB-ULB were strongly correlated with the 14-day mean confirmed cases in the Brussels-Capital and in Belgium with coinciding start, peak, and end of the different waves of the epidemic. Ct values decreased concurrently with the forecasted phase-shifts of the diagram. Similarly, the evolution of 14-day median Ct values was negatively correlated with daily estimated prevalence for all age-classes.Conclusion: We provide preliminary evidence that trends of Ct values can help to both follow and predict the epidemic's trajectory at local and national levels, underlining that consolidated microbiology laboratories can act as epidemic sensors as they gather data that are representative of the geographical area they serve.

Background:We evaluated the quantitative DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals consulting their general practioner (GP) during a period of stable intense virus circulation (213/100,000 habitants per day). Methods:Left-over RT-PCR positive (n=204) and negative (n=210) nasopharyngeal samples were randomly selected among fresh routine samples collected from patients consulting their GP. Samples were tested on Liaison XL according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Equivocal results were considered positive. Results:Overall sensitivity and specificity of the Liaison antigen test compared to RT-PCR were 67.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 60.9%-73.7%] and 100% [CI: 97.8%-100%]. Sensitivity in samples with a viral load ≥105, ≥104 and ≥103 copies/mL was 100% [CI: 96.3%-100.0%], 96.5% [CI: 91.8%-98.7%] and 87.4% [CI: 81.3%-91.5%], respectively. All samples ≤103 copies/mL were antigen negative. The ratio of antigen concentration to viral load in samples ≥103 copies/mL was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (p=0.58). The proportion of RT-PCR positive participants with a high viral load (≥105 copies/mL) was not significantly higher in symptomatic than in asymptomatic participants (63.9% [CI: 54.9%-72.0%] vs. 51.9% [CI: 41.1%-62.6%], p=0.11), but the proportion of participants with a low viral load (<103 copies/mL) was significantly higher in asymptomatic than in symptomatic RT-PCR positive participants (35.4% [CI: 25.8%-46.4%] vs. 14.3% [CI: 9.0%-21.8%], p<0.01). Conclusions:Sensitivity and specificity in samples with a viral load ≥104 copies/mL was 96.5% and 100%. The correlation of antigen concentration with viral load was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

Introduction: Since the first wave of COVID-19 in Europe, new diagnostic tools using antigen detection and rapid molecular techniques have been developed. Our objective was to elaborate a diagnostic algorithm combining antigen rapid diagnostic tests, automated antigen dosing and rapid molecular tests and to assess its performance under routine conditions.Methods: An analytical performance evaluation of four antigen rapid tests, one automated antigen dosing and one molecular point-of-care test was performed on samples sent to our laboratory for a SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR. We then established a diagnostic algorithm by approaching median viral loads in target populations and evaluated the limit of detection of each test using the PCR cycle threshold values. A field performance evaluation including a clinical validation and a user-friendliness assessment was then conducted on the antigen rapid tests in point-of-care settings (general practitioners and emergency rooms) for outpatients who were symptomatic for &lt;7 days. Automated antigen dosing was trialed for the screening of asymptomatic inpatients.Results: Our diagnostic algorithm proposed to test recently symptomatic patients using rapid antigen tests, asymptomatic patients using automated tests, and patients requiring immediate admission using molecular point-of-care tests. Accordingly, the conventional reverse transcription PCR was kept as a second line tool. In this setting, antigen rapid tests yielded an overall sensitivity of 83.3% (not significantly different between the four assays) while the use of automated antigen dosing would have spared 93.5% of asymptomatic inpatient screening PCRs.Conclusion: Using tests not considered the “gold standard” for COVID-19 diagnosis on well-defined target populations allowed for the optimization of their intrinsic performances, widening the scale of our testing arsenal while sparing molecular resources for more seriously ill patients.