Background Lateral flow devices (LFDs) for rapid antigen testing are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing, although their reduced sensitivity compared with PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is, therefore, essential for successful implementation. We evaluated six commercial LFDs and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Methods In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we did a head-to-head comparison of six LFDs commercially available in the UK: Innova Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test, Spring Healthcare SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette, E25Bio Rapid Diagnostic Test, Encode SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Device, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Cassette, and SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Fluorescence Antigen Test. We estimated the specificities and sensitivities of the LFDs using stored naso-oropharyngeal swabs collected at St Thomas' Hospital (London, UK) for routine diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing by real-time RT-PCR (RT-rtPCR). Swabs were from inpatients and outpatients from all departments of St Thomas' Hospital, and from health-care staff (all departments) and their household contacts. SARS-CoV-2-negative swabs from the same population (confirmed by RT-rtPCR) were used for comparative specificity determinations. All samples were collected between March 23 and Oct 27, 2020. We determined the limit of detection (LOD) for each test using viral plaque-forming units (PFUs) and viral RNA copy numbers of laboratory-grown SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, LFDs were selected to assess the correlation of antigen test result with RT-rtPCR Ct values and positive viral culture in Vero E6 cells. This analysis included longitudinal swabs from five infected inpatients with varying disease severities. Furthermore, the sensitivities of available LFDs were assessed in swabs (n=23; collected from Dec 4, 2020, to Jan 12, 2021) confirmed to be positive (RT-rtPCR and whole-genome sequencing) for the B.1.1.7 variant, which was the dominant genotype in the UK at the time of study completion. Findings All LFDs showed high specificity (≥98·0%), except for the E25Bio test (86·0% [95% CI 77·9–99·9]), and most tests reliably detected 50 PFU/test (equivalent SARS-CoV-2 N gene Ct value of 23·7, or RNA copy number of 3 × 10 6 /mL). Sensitivities of the LFDs on clinical samples ranged from 65·0% (55·2–73·6) to 89·0% (81·4–93·8). These sensitivities increased to greater than 90% for samples with Ct values of lower than 25 for all tests except the SureScreen fluorescence (SureScreen-F) test. Positive virus culture was identified in 57 (40·4%) of 141 samples; 54 (94·7%) of the positive cultures were from swabs with Ct values lower than 25. Among the three LFDs selected for detailed comparisons (the tests with highest sensitivity [Innova], highest specificity [Encode], and alter...

There are strong evidences that Mycobacterium tuberculosis survives in a non-replicating state in the absence of oxygen in closed lesions and granuloma in vivo. In addition, M. tuberculosis is acid-resistant, allowing mycobacteria to survive in acidic, inflamed lesions. The ability of M. tuberculosis to resist to acid was recently shown to contribute to the bacillus virulence although the mechanisms involved have yet to be deciphered. In this study, we report that M. tuberculosis resistance to acid is oxygen-dependent; whereas aerobic mycobacteria were resistant to a mild acid challenge (pH 5.5) as previously reported, we found microaerophilic and hypoxic mycobacteria to be more sensitive to acid. In hypoxic conditions, mild-acidity promoted the dissipation of the protonmotive force, rapid ATP depletion and cell death. Exogenous nitrate, the most effective alternate terminal electron acceptor after molecular oxygen, protected hypoxic mycobacteria from acid stress. Nitrate-mediated resistance to acidity was not observed for a respiratory nitrate reductase NarGH knock-out mutant strain. Furthermore, we found that nitrate respiration was equally important in protecting hypoxic non-replicating mycobacteria from radical nitrogen species toxicity. Overall, these data shed light on a new role for nitrate respiration in protecting M. tuberculosis from acidity and reactive nitrogen species, two environmental stresses likely encountered by the pathogen during the course of infection.

Laboratory diagnosis and clinical management of inpatients with diarrhoea is complex and time consuming. Tests are often requested sequentially and undertaken in different laboratories. This causes prolonged unnecessary presumptive isolation of patients, because most cases are non-infectious. A molecular multiplex test (Luminex(®) Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel (GPP)) was compared with conventional testing over 8 months to determine diagnostic accuracy, turnaround times, laboratory costs, use of isolation facilities and user acceptability. A total of 262 (12%) patients had a pathogen detected by conventional methods compared with 483 (22.1%) by GPP. Most additional cases were detected in patients developing symptoms in the first 4 days of admission. Additional cases were detected because of presumed improved diagnostic sensitivity but also because clinicians had not requested the correct pathogen. Turnaround time (41.8 h) was faster than bacterial culture (66.5 h) and parasite investigation (66.5 h) but slower than conventional testing for Clostridium difficile (17.3 h) and viruses (27 h). The test could allow simplified requesting by clinicians and a consolidated laboratory workflow, reducing the overall number of specimens received by the laboratory. A total of 154 isolation days were saved at an estimated cost of £30 800. Consumables and labour were estimated at £150 641 compared with £63 431 for conventional testing. Multiplex molecular testing using a panel of targets allowed enhanced detection and a consolidated laboratory workflow. This is likely to be of greater benefit to cases that present within the first 4 days of hospital admission.

Background Clinical metagenomics (CMg) has the potential to be translated from a research tool into routine service to improve antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic provides added impetus to realise these benefits, given the increased risk of secondary infection and nosocomial transmission of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) pathogens linked with the expansion of critical care capacity. Methods CMg using nanopore sequencing was evaluated in a proof-of-concept study on 43 respiratory samples from 34 intubated patients across seven intensive care units (ICUs) over a 9-week period during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Results An 8-h CMg workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75–99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57–96%) for bacterial identification based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively. CMg sequencing reported the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales that would modify the initial guideline-recommended antibiotics in every case. CMg was also 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for detecting Aspergillus fumigatus from 4 positive and 39 negative samples. Molecular typing using 24-h sequencing data identified an MDR-K. pneumoniae ST307 outbreak involving 4 patients and an MDR-C. striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs. Conclusion CMg testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance. The provision of this technology in a service setting could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections. The potential to improve the initial targeted treatment and rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of MDR-pathogens justifies further expedited clinical assessment of CMg.

A successful infection control programme was associated with the selection of qacA linked with a higher chlorhexidine MIC in one dominant endemic MRSA clone (CC22), but not another (CC30). The slower reduction in the CC22 MRSA BSI rate suggests that carriage of qacA confers a selective advantage, with implications for the sustainability of decolonization practice.

There is a worldwide shortage of reagents to perform detection of SARS-CoV-2. Many clinical diagnostic laboratories rely on commercial platforms that provide integrated end-to-end solutions. While this provides established robust pipelines, there is a clear bottleneck in the supply of reagents given the current situation of extraordinary high demand. Some laboratories resort to implementing kit-free handling procedures, but many other small laboratories will not have the capacity to develop those and/or will perform manual handling of their samples. In order to provide multiple workflows for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection we compared several commercially available RNA extraction methods: QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN), the recently developed RNAdvance Blood (Beckman) and Mag-Bind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (Omega Bio-tek). We also compared different 1-step RT-qPCR Master Mix brands: TaqMan™ Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix (ThermoFisher Scientific), qPCRBIO Probe 1-Step Go Lo-ROX (PCR Biosystems) and Luna® Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit (NEB). We used the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) recommended primers that detect two regions of the viral N gene as well as those that detect the RdRP gene region as per Public Health England (PHE) guidelines (Charité/WHO/PHE). Our data show that the RNA extraction methods provide similar results. Amongst the qPCR reagents tested, TaqMan™ Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix and Luna® Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit proved most sensitive. The N1 and N2 primer-probes provide a more reliable detection than the RdRP_SARSr primer-probe set, particularly in samples with low viral titres. Importantly, we have implemented a protocol using heat inactivation and demonstrate that it has minimal impact on the sensitivity of the qPCR in clinical samples -potentially making SARS-CoV-2 testing portable to settings that do not have CL-3 facilities. In summary, we provide several testing pipelines that can be easily implemented in other laboratories and have made all our protocols and SOPs freely available at https://osf.io/uebvj/.

No abstract

The COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium, Combined epidemiological and genomic analysis of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic and the role of unidentified cases in transmission, Clinical Microbiology and Infection,