BackgroundAcute gastroenteritis is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in humans worldwide. The rapid and specific identification of infectious agents is crucial for correct patient management. However, diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis is usually performed with diagnostic panels that include only a few pathogens. In the present bicentric study, the diagnostic value of FilmArray™ GI panels was assessed in unformed stool samples of patients with acute gastroenteritis and in a series of samples collected from pediatric patients with heamorragic diarrhea. The clinical performance of the FilmArray™ gastrointestinal (GI) panel was assessed in 168 stool samples collected from patients with either acute gastroenteritis or hemorragic diarrhea. Samples showing discordant results between FilmArray and routine methods were further analyzed with an additional assay.ResultsOverall, the FilmArray™ GI panel detected at least one potential pathogen in 92/168 (54.8%) specimens. In 66/92 (71.8%) samples, only one pathogen was detected, while in 26/92 (28.2%) multiple pathogens were detected.The most frequent pathogens were rotavirus 13.9% (22/168), Campylobacter 10.7% (18/168), Clostridium difficile 9.5% (16/168), and norovirus 8.9% (15/168). Clostridium difficile was identified only in patients with acute gastroenteritis (p < 0.01), while STEC was detected exclusively in patients with hemorragic diarrhea (p < 0.01). In addition, Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., EPEC and E. coli producing Shiga-like toxin were more frequently detected in patients with hemorragic diarrhea (p < 0.05). The overall percent agreement calculated in samples was 73.8% and 65.5%, while 34.5% were discordant. After additional confirmatory analyses, the proportion of discordant samples decreased to 7.7%. Rotavirus and astrovirus were the most frequently unconfirmed pathogens.ConclusionIn conclusion, the FilmArray™ GI panel has proved to be a valuable new diagnostic tool for improving the diagnostic efficiency of GI pathogens.

Background Vaccines against COVID-19 are a powerful tool to control the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A thorough description of their immunogenicity among people living with HIV (PLWHIV) is necessary. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine among PLWHIV. Methods In this prospective cohort, adult PLWHIV outpatients were enrolled during the Italian vaccination campaign. Enrolment was allowed irrespective of ongoing combination antiretroviral therapy (ART), plasma HIV viral load and CD4+ T cell count. A two-dose regimen of mRNA-1273, with administrations performed 28 days apart, was employed. The primary outcomes were anti-spike (anti-S) antibody titres and neutralising antibody activity, assessed 28 days after completing the vaccination schedule. A convenient sample of individuals not affected by HIV was also collected to serve as control (referred as healthy-donors, HDs). Findings We enrolled 71 PLWHIV, mostly male (84·5%), with a mean age of 47 years, a median CD4+ T cell count of 747·0 cells per µL and a median HIV viral load <50 copies/mL. COVID-19-experienced PLWHIV displayed higher anti-S antibody titres (p=0·0007) and neutralising antibody activity in sera (p=0·0007) than COVID-19-naïve PLWHIV. When stratified according to CD4+ T cell count (<350 cells/μL, 350-500 cells/μL, >500 cells/μL), anti-S antibody titres (6/71, median 2173 U/mL [IQR 987-4109]; 7/71, 5763 IU/mL [IQR 4801->12500]; 58/71, 2449 U/mL [IQR 1524-5704]) were not lower to those observed among HDs (10, median 1425 U/mL [IQR 599-6131]). In addition, neutralising antibody activity, stratified according to the CD4+ T cell count (6/71, median 1314 [IQR 606-2477]; 7/71, 3329 IU/mL [IQR 1905-10508]; 58/71, 1227 U/mL [IQR 761-3032]), was like those displayed by HDs (10, median 2112 U/mL [IQR 719-8889]). Interpretation In our cohort of PLWHIV with well-controlled ART, stable viral suppression and robust CD4+ T cell count, inoculation with mRNA-1273 vaccine given 4 weeks apart produced detectable humoral immune response, similar to individuals without HIV infection, supporting vaccination in PLWHIV. Funding This study was partially supported by Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente 2021, by Intesa San Paolo COVID-19 emergency 2020 funds, and by Fondazione Cariplo Grant (INNATE-CoV).

No abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG among health careworkers (HCWs) in our university hospital and verify the risk of acquiring the infection according to work area.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingMonocentric, Italian, third-level university hospital.ParticipantsAll the employees of the hospital on a voluntary base, for a total of 4055 participants among 4572 HCWs (88.7%).Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumber of anti-SARS-CoV-2 positive serology according to working area. Association of anti-SARS-CoV-2 positive serology to selected variables (age, gender, country of origin, body mass index, smoking, symptoms and contact with confirmed cases).ResultsFrom 27 April 2020 to 12 June 2020, 4055 HCWs were tested and 309 (7.6%) had a serological positive test. No relevant difference was found between men and women (8.3% vs 7.3%, p=0.3), whereas a higher prevalence was observed among foreign-born workers (27/186, 14.5%, p<0.001), employees younger than 30 (64/668, 9.6%, p=0.02) or older than 60 years (38/383, 9.9%, p=0.02) and among healthcare assistants (40/320, 12.5%, p=0.06). Working as frontline HCWs was not associated with an increased frequency of positive serology (p=0.42). A positive association was found with presence and number of symptoms (p<0.001). The symptoms most frequently associated with a positive serology were taste and smell alterations (OR 4.62, 95% CI: 2.99 to 7.15) and fever (OR 4.37, 95% CI: 3.11 to 6.13). No symptoms were reported in 84/309 (27.2%) HCWs with positive IgG levels. Declared exposure to a suspected/confirmed case was more frequently associated (p<0.001) with positive serology when the contact was a family member (19/94, 20.2%) than a patient or colleague (78/888, 8.8%).ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 infection occurred undetected in a large fraction of HCWs and it was not associated with working in COVID-19 frontline areas. Beyond the hospital setting, exposure within the community represents an additional source of infection for HCWs.