Infectious Diseases and Therapy

ObjectivesWe conducted a meta-analysis of RAT diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infections, and further evaluated test sensitivity versus the presence of symptoms, days post symptom onset (DPSO), sample viral load, and sample type (i.e. direct swabs versus specimens stored in transport media). MethodsThree databases were searched systematically for performance evaluations of the Roche-distributed SDB SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche/SDB RAT) through March 2022. If the Roche/SDB RAT was compared with any of 9 commonly available antigen tests, data from these tests were also included. ResultsOverall sensitivity of RATs among different manufacturers and study cohorts varied between 36.0% (95% CI: 24.0-50.1) and 79.4% (95% CI: 64.8-89.0). Roche/SDB RATs demonstrated a competitive performance with a pooled (including off-label use) sensitivity of 70.0%, and nearly 100% specificity in included studies. The Roche/SDB RATs exhibited reliable sensitivity in patients with a relatively high viral load (96.6% [95% CI: 95.2-98.2] for Ct[≤]25). Roche/SDB RATs were more sensitive in symptomatic patients within the first 7 DPSO (85.5% [95% CI: 81.2-88.4]), and when used to test direct swabs (74.4% [95% CI: 69.7-80.3]). ConclusionRATs show reliable performance in clinical settings and should be considered when rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical. HIGHLIGHTSO_LIMeta-analysis of 86 studies of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (RAT) performance C_LIO_LIRAT performance supports near-patient testing for early COVID-19 diagnosis C_LIO_LIRAT specificity is high and sensitivity is reliable in those with high viral load C_LIO_LIRAT sensitivity in symptomatic patients is higher than in asymptomatic individuals C_LIO_LIRAT sensitivity is higher for direct swabs compared to swabs in transport media C_LI

OBJECTIVESTo assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma plus standard of care (CP + SoC) compared with standard of care (SoC) alone in patients hospitalized for moderate to severe COVID-19 who do not yet require mechanical ventilation. METHODSPhase 2 randomized, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, controlled, superiority, single-center clinical trial. This clinical trial has been registered in REPEC with the following ID: 013-20. Hospitalized adult patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 were enrolled. The allocation ratio was 1:1 in a variable-size permuted block randomization scheme. The primary outcome was death 28 days after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were mortality at 14 and 56 days, time to death at 56 days, time in the ICU at 28 days, time on a mechanical ventilator at 28 days, frequency of adverse events, and frequency of serious adverse events. RESULTSA total of 64 participants were enrolled, 32 were assigned to CP + SoC, and 32 to SoC. One participant assigned to CP + SoC withdrew his informed consent before applying the treatment. At day 28, there were no statistically significant differences for the primary outcome between the CP + SoC and SoC groups (relative risk: 2.06; 95%CI 0.73 to 7.11; p = 0.190). No differences were found in the incidences of mortality at 56 days (hazard ratio: 2.21; 95%CI 0.66 to 7.33; p = 0.182), admission to the ICU at 28 days (sub-hazard ratio: 2.06; 95%CI 0.57 to 8.55; p = 0.250), admission to mechanical ventilation at 28 days (sub-hazard ratio: 2.19; 95%CI 0.57 to 8.51; p = 0.260). Estimates for days 14 were similar. No infusion-related adverse events were reported during the study. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of any adverse events (odds ratio: 2.74; 95%CI 0.90 to 9.10; p = 0.085) or the frequency of serious adverse events (odds ratio: 3.60; 95%CI 0.75 to 26.1; p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONSNo evidence was found that CP had a significant effect in reducing 28-day mortality. There was also no evidence that the frequency of adverse events was higher in those who received CP + SoC than those who received only SoC.

BackgroundThe proportion of critically ill COVID-19 patients has collapsed hospital care worldwide. The need for alternative therapies for this group of patients is imperative. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) compared with human immunoglobulin (IVIg) in patients requiring the administration of high oxygen levels or mechanical ventilation. MethodsThis is a controlled, randomized, open clinical trial of patients with pneumonia secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection, that fulfilled criteria for severe or critical disease. They were randomized in a 1:2 ratio; group 1 was administered IVIg at a dose of 0.3 grams per kilogram of ideal weight, in an 8-hour infusion every 24 hours, for 5 days. Group 2 was administered 200 ml of CP infused in 2 hours, for 2 days. The primary outcomes were duration of hospitalization and mortality at 28 days. ResultsOne hundred and ninety (190) patients were randomized; 130 to the CP group, and 60 to the IVIg group. Their average age was 58 years (IQR 47 - 72), and most were male (n= 119, 62.6 %). On inclusion, 85.2 % of patients (n=162) were on invasive mechanical ventilation therapy. Overall mortality in all included patients was 53 % (n= 102), with a median follow-up of 14 days (IQI 8 - 26). Mortality at 28 days was 45.2 % (n=86). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between groups neither in mortality on follow-up (53.8 vs. 53.3, p =1.0) nor at 28 days (46.2 vs 43 %, p=0.75, Log Rank p = 0.83). Per-protocol analysis between treatment groups revealed no difference in mortality throughout hospitalization (51.5 vs 51.4 %, p=1.0) nor after 28 days (42.1 vs 42.87 %, p=0.92 Log Rank p = 0.54). Only 23 patients in the CP group received plasma with detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. ConclusionsIn critically ill patients or on invasive mechanical ventilation for treatment of Covid-19, the use of CP is not superior to IVIg in terms of hospitalization duration or mortality. The use of CP is based on complex logistics and requires an assured level of antibodies if used therapeutically. IVIg does not appear to be useful in this group of patients. clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04381858.

In this work, we report a systematic review and meta-analysis that seeks to analyze the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this article is to detail the scientific findings based on diagnostic tests of the last years when the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) occurred. Searches for published studies were carried out in the PubMed database between the years 2020 and 2021 for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ninety-nine scientific articles that met the criteria were examined and accepted in the meta-analysis, and the diagnostic accuracy was evaluated through specificity and sensitivity. Molecular tests [Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)] showed better performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity when compared to serological tests [Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassays (CMIA), and Fluorescence immunoassay (FIA)], which showed higher specificity, mainly for the detection of IgG antibodies; however, they showed sensitivity <90%. In addition, the antiviral neutralization bioassay (ANB) diagnostic test demonstrated high potential for the diagnosis of COVID-19, since it obtained the highest area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUCFPR) of 0.984. It is settled that the different diagnostic tests have been efficiently adapted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2; however, their performance still needs to be optimized to control future outbreaks of COVID-19, which will also serve to help the control of future infectious agents.

BackgroundSeveral studies have compared the performance of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) as tools to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19). As the performance of Ag-RDT may vary among different products and viral load scenarios, the clinical utility of the Ag-RDT remains unclear. Our aim is to assess the diagnostic agreement between Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR in testing for COVID-19 across different products and cycle threshold (Ct) values. MethodsAn evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) was conducted after an exhaustive search of five databases to locate published studies that compared Ag-RDT to RT-PCR and reported quantitative comparison results. After the screening, quality assessment, and data extraction, the synthesis of pooled estimates was carried out utilizing the quality-effects (QE) model and Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation (FTT) for variance stabilization. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to evaluate the tests diagnostic agreement across distinctive products and Ct-value thresholds. FindingsA total of 420 studies were screened by title and abstract, of which 39 were eventually included in the analysis. The overall NPA was 99.4% (95%CI 98.8-99.8, I2=91.40%). The PPA was higher in lower Ct groups such as groups with Ct <20 and Ct <25, which had an overall PPA of 95.9% (95%CI 92.7-98.2, I2=0%) and 96.8% (95%CI 95.2-98.0, I2=50.1%) respectively. This is in contrast to groups with higher Ct values, which had relatively lower PPA. Panbio and Roche Ag-RDTs had the best consistent overall PPA across different Ct groups especially in groups with Ct <20 and Ct <25. InterpretationThe findings of our meta-analysis support the use of Ag-RDTs in lieu of RT-PCR for decision making regarding COVID-19 control measures, since the enhanced capacity of RT-PCR to detect disease in those that are Ag-RDT negative will be unlikely to have much public health utility. This step will drastically reduce the cost and time in testing for COVID-19. FundingThis research did not receive any specific funding.

Immunosuppressed patients have increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 because they less frequently mount antibody responses to vaccines and often cannot tolerate small-molecule antivirals. The Omicron variant of concern of SARS-CoV-2 has progressively defeated anti-Spike mAbs authorized so far, paving the way to a return to COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy. In this systematic review we performed a metanalysis of 9 controlled studies (totaling 535 treated patients and 1365 controls and including 4 randomized controlled trials), an individual patient data analysis of 125 case reports/series (totaling 265 patients), and a descriptive analysis of 13 uncontrolled large case series without individual patient data available (totaling 358 patients). The metanalysis of controlled studies showed a risk ratio for mortality of 0.65 (risk difference -0.11) in treatment with CCP versus standard of care for immunosuppressed COVID-19 patients. On the basis of this evidence, we encourage initiation of high-titer CCP from vaccinees( hybrid plasma) in immunocompromised patients.

BackgroundThere is a need to confirm the clinical performance of point-of-care (POC) testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in emergency departments and time-sensitive outpatient settings. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of the Cobas(R) SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat System (POC SARS- CoV-2) with the Cobas SARS-CoV-2 Qualitative Assay for use on the Cobas 6800/8800 System (68/8800) when used to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals at POC settings. MethodsThis prospective, two-site, non-interventional study, conducted in the US and Germany, collected fresh POC nasopharyngeal samples according to local procedures for upper respiratory swab sampling. Pairwise agreement was evaluated by estimating positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) between POC SARS-CoV-2 and 68/8800 assays. Site-specific analyses were also conducted. FindingsOverall, 317 evaluable samples were collected from March 30 to July 2023 (US site) and from November 7, 2023 to April 4, 2024 (German site). Relative to 68/8800, POC SARS-CoV-2 had a PPA of 98.8% (169/171) and an NPA of 90.4% (132/146). The OPA was 95.0%. Site-specific analyses were broadly comparable to the overall results, although enrichment for positive samples at the US site resulted in a PPA and NPA of 98.6% (139/141) and 55.6% (5/9), respectively. InterpretationPOC SARS-CoV-2 used in real-world POC settings showed good overall clinical performance relative to 68/8800, a widely used and accurate laboratory-based test, for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Efficient POC testing will help improve the timely management of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Key pointsO_LIThere are limited clinical studies evaluating the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 assays in real-world populations C_LIO_LIThe Cobas(R) SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat System showed good clinical performance relative to a widely used laboratory-based test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 at two point-of-care hospital sites. C_LIO_LIEfficient point-of-care testing will help improve the timely management of SARS- CoV-2 infections C_LI

BackgroundThe use of convalescent plasma (CP) to treat COVID-19 has shown promising results; however, its effectiveness remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and mortality of CP among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Study Design and MethodsThis multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled clinical trial is currently being conducted at nine hospitals in Chile. Patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 who were still within 14 days since symptom onset were classified into four groups: Patients with cancer and severe COVID-19. Patients with cancer and non-severe COVID-19. Patients with severe COVID-19 and patients with non-severe COVID-19 only. The intervention involved two 200-cc. CP transfusions with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers [&ge;] 1:320 collected from COVID-19-recovered donors. Results192 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 received CP transfusions. At the first transfusion, 90.6% fulfilled the criteria for severity, and 41.1% required mechanical ventilation. 11.5% of the patients had cancer. Overall 7-day and 30-day mortality since the first CP transfusion was 5.7% and 16.1% respectively. There were no differences at either time point in mortality between the four groups. Patients on mechanical ventilation when receiving CP had higher mortality rates than those who were not (22.8% vs. 11.5%; p = 0.037). Overall 30-day mortality was higher in patients over 65 than in younger patients (p = 0.019). Severe adverse events were reported in four patients (2.1%) with an overall transfusion-related lung injury rate of 1.56%. No CP-related deaths occurred. DiscussionCP is safe when used in patients with COVID-19 even when also presenting severity criteria or risk factors. Our mortality rate is comparable to reports from larger studies. Controlled clinical trials are required to determine efficacy. RegistrationNCT04384588

BackgroundCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is obtained from people recently recovered from COVID-19 and contains viral-neutralizing antibodies. Because such treatment is safe and effective against SARS-CoV-2, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently authorized the use of CCP for COVID-19 patients with immunodeficiencies. Currently available CCP is a "hybrid" product with antibodies from individuals who had both infection and vaccination (vaccine-boosted CCP). In this context, there is growing interest in CCP treatment outcomes in specific groups of immunocompromised patients. Specifically, B-cell depleted patients are at risk of not producing antibodies after either infection or vaccination. Hence, B-cell depleted patients are conceivably among those who would benefit the most from CCP. We thus conducted a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to assess characteristics associated with 60-day survival in B-cell depleted patients transfused with CCP. MethodsThe last search was April 2nd, 2024, and included all studies using CCP in B-cell depleted patients. Whenever not available in the publication, we requested individual participant data from corresponding authors of eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression. ResultsWe describe individual patient data extracted from 85 studies and synthesized into a cohort of 570 patients. The overall 60-day survival rate was 86.5%. Of patients with information available, 70.1% achieved SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and 64.3% had clinical improvement within 5 days of CCP transfusion. After controlling for age, sex, calendar year of infection and World Health Organization (WHO) disease severity, we found a significant association between 60-day survival and days since last anti-CD20 dose (OR=1.16 per 10-day increase; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.29; p=0.007) and transfusion of vaccine-boosted CCP (OR=9.49; 95% CI 2.01 to 44.82; p=0.005), but not with concomitant remdesivir treatment (OR=1.31; 95% CI 0.66 to 2.61; p=0.440). DiscussionOur study is limited to individual participant data analysis, with a majority of the studies included being case series and case reports. Overall survival in our cohort of B-cell depleted patients was consistent with prior meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on survival of immunocompromised patient transfused with CCP ([~]84%). A novel finding from this analysis is that vaccine-boosted CCP with a presumably higher content of neutralizing antibodies is associated with a high survival benefit. RegistrationThe protocol for this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024516513) on March 1st, 2024.

Objectives: Influenza is a widespread acute respiratory illness posing a major public health challenge for both the National Health Service (NHS) and society, particularly among older adults. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of high-dose quadrivalent vaccine (HD-QIV) versus adjuvanted quadrivalent vaccine (aQIV) in older adults in Spain. Methods: Public health and economic benefits were evaluated using a decision-tree model considering influenza cases, GP and ED visits, hospitalizations, and influenza-related mortality. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed epidemiological and economic uncertainties. Results: From a societal perspective, HD-QIV prevented 54,039 influenza cases, 7,733 GP consultations, 1,585 ED visits, 27,398 episodes of hospitalization due to cardiorespiratory events over a single influenza season and 1,203 deaths compared to aQIV when vaccinating adults [&ge;]65 years old in Spain, resulting in 14,316 LYs and 12,440 QALYs gained over a lifetime horizon. The reduction in health outcomes outweighed the increase in vaccination costs, translating to a reduction in total costs with HD-QIV compared to aQIV. Therefore, vaccinating older adults in Spain with HD-QIV instead of aQIV was a dominant strategy when evaluating hospitalizations due to respiratory and cardiovascular events. HD-QIV remained dominant from a NHS perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. Conclusions: This analysis showed that vaccinating older adults in Spain with HD-QIV instead of aQIV would reduce influenza cases, GP and ED visits, hospitalizations, deaths, and associated costs, and thus it should be the strategy of choice in a situation of budgetary constraints from either a societal or an NHS perspective.

ObjetivesTo assess the effects of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Study designSystematic review and Meta-analysis Data sourcesA systematic search was carried out on the L {middle dot} OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19 until October 31, 2020 Study selectionRandomized clinical trials in which people with probable or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to drug treatment, standard care, or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. MethodsThe PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0, and the certainty of the evidence using the recommendation assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, the interventions were classified into groups, from most to least beneficial or harmful. ResultsWe identified 10 RCTs (randomized controlled trials) involving 11854 patients in which convalescent plasma was compared with standard of care or other treatments. The results of five RCTs that evaluated the use of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 did not show significant differences in the effect on mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. ConclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of convalescent plasma in the treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19. Contribution of the authors O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1485b91org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@173b855org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@4ad531org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@f2af32org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@cc3bb4_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL C_TBL

BackgroundRandomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) demonstrated that tocilizumab reduces mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, substantial uncertainty remains whether tocilizumabs effect is similar across clinically relevant subgroups. Whether this uncertainty can be resolved with Bayesian methods is unknown. Design, Setting, Participants, and InterventionsRECOVERY was a controlled, open-label, platform UK trial that randomized (1:1) 4116 adults with oxygen saturation <92% on room air or receiving oxygen therapy with C-reactive protein [&ge;]75 mg/L to either usual care or tocilizumab plus usual care. Main outcome measuresMortality and hospital discharge within 28 days. MethodsUsing Bayesian methods, we combined RECOVERY with evidence-based priors in-corporating previous COVID-19 tocilizumab RCTs. The probability of tocilizumabs benefit for respiratory support and corticosteroid subgroups and sensitivity analyses were performed with different prior distributions and baseline risks. ResultsFor all-cause mortality, the posterior probabilities of decreased deaths with tocilizumab were >99% and 19% in patients using and not using corticosteroids, respectively. In patients on simple oxygen only, non-invasive ventilation and invasive mechanical ventilation, the probabilities of decreased mortality were 96%, >99% and 77%, respectively. The probabilities for a clinically significant mortality reduction, as assessed by an absolute risk difference > 3% (number needed to treat [&le;] 33), were 77%, 96%, 56%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses highlighted the uncertainty and lack of conclusive evidence for tocilizumabs effect in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation and those without concurrent corticosteroids. Posterior probabilities of benefit for hospital discharge outcome were high and consistent across most subgroups. ConclusionsIn this Bayesian reanalysis, COVID-19 hospitalized patients exposed to corticosteroids or on non-invasive ventilation have a high probability of a clinically meaningful mortality benefit from tocilizumab. Tocilizumab also likely improves discharge from hospital in most subgroups. Future research should further address if patients on invasive mechanical ventilation can also benefit from tocilizumab.

BackgroundIn patients with COVID-19 and baseline soluble urokinase plasminogen receptor plasma (suPAR) levels [&ge;] 6ng/mL, early administration of anakinra, a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, may prevent disease progression and death. In case of suPAR testing unavailability, the Severe COvid Prediction Estimate (SCOPE) score may be used as an alternative in guiding treatment decisions. MethodsWe conducted a monocenter, retrospective cohort study, including patients with SARS-CoV2 infection and respiratory failure. Patients treated with anakinra (anakinra group, AG) were compared to two control groups of patients who did not receive anakinra, respectively with [&ge;] 6 ng/mL (CG1) and < 6 ng/mL (CG2) baseline suPAR levels. Controls were paired by age, sex, date of admission and vaccination status. Primary endpoint of the study was disease progression at day 14 from admission, as defined by patient distribution on a simplified version of the 11-point World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS). ResultsBetween July, 2021 and January, 2022, 153 patients were included, among which 56 were treated with off-label anakinra, 49 retrospectively fulfilled prescriptive criteria for anakinra and were assigned to CG1, and 48 presented with suPAR levels < 6ng/mL and were assigned to CG2. At day 14, when comparing to CG1, patients who received anakinra had significantly reduced odds of progressing towards worse clinical outcome both in ordinal regression analysis (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11-0.54, p<0.001) and in multivariable analysis (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03-0.82, p=0.037), and these results were confirmed even when controlling for age, sex, BMI and vaccinal status. Sensitivities of baseline suPAR and SCOPE score in predicting progression towards severe disease or death at day 14 were similar (83% vs 100%, p=0.59). ConclusionThis real-word, retrospective cohort study confirmed the safety and the efficacy of suPAR-guided, early use of anakinra in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure.

This prospective multicentre study investigated pneumococcal serotype distribution and vaccine coverage of the 13- and 20-valent conjugate vaccines, and the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine among adults with community-acquired pneumonia in Germany, from 2020 to 2023, using serotype-specific urine antigen detection testing. The findings show that Streptococcus pneumoniae has reemerged as causative pathogen of pneumonia, particularly in adults aged [&ge;]60 years. This resurgence, observed during the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, has been primarily driven by an increase in cases due to serotype 3.

BackgroundTocilizumab treatment is investigated, and effectiveness in ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients has been reported. Although controversy exists regarding the efficacy of tocilizumab treatment, it has been suggested that tocilizumab might show positive results depending on patient severity status. We examined an association between tocilizumab and distinct disease severity stages. Methods and FindingsFrom March 3 to March 23 2020, 494 consecutively admitted COVID-19 patients received tocilizumab or standard treatment alone. Data were obtained retrospectively. Clinical respiratory severity (CRS) stages were defined by patient oxygenation status and were also associated to scores of WHO clinical progression scale. We categorized patients in three stages, mild/moderate CRS1 (FiSpO2<0.35; WHO score 5), moderate/severe CRS2 (FiO2=0.5/high flow mask; WHO score 6) and severe/critical CRS3 (FiO2<80%/high flow/prone position or mechanical ventilation; score>6). The primary outcome was the composite of death or ICU admission in patients of stages CRS1, CRS2, and CRS3, as well as in total patients. We also addressed mortality alone in total patients. Kaplan-Maier curves, Cox proportional regression and inverse probability weighting marginal structural models were used. We conducted the study from March 3 to April 7 2020 with broad-ranged severity patients; 167 tocilizumab-treated and 327 untreated. CRS1 patients showed no apparent benefit after treatment, while the risk of the primary outcome was greatly reduced in CRS2 treated participants ((HR=0.22; 95% CI (0.16-0.44)). Moreover, tocilizumab treatment was associated with significantly decreased CRS2 patient proportion that reached the outcome compared to non-treated controls (27.8.0% vs. 65.4%; p<0.001). Severe/critical CRS3 patients, also showed benefit after treatment (HR=0.38; 95% CI (0.16-90)), although not as robust as was that of CRS2 treated individuals. Tocilizumab was associated with reduced outcome risk in total patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI (0.26-0.66)) after CRS adjustment, but not if CRS classification was not accounted as confounding factor (HR=1.19; 95% CI (0.84-1.69)). The outcome of mortality alone upon tocilizumab treatment was significant (HR=0.58; 95% CI (0.35-0.96)) after accounting for CRS classification. ConclusionsTocilizumab treatment is associated with reduced COVID-19 escalation in CRS2 patients, suggesting efficacy in moderate/severe non-ICU-admitted patients. CRS classification could represent an essential confounding factor in evaluating tocilizumab in studies of broad-ranged severity patients.

ImportanceSerology tests are diagnostic and complementary to molecular tests during the COVID-19 pandemic. ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FDA authorized serology tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data sourcesA search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, and EMBASE up to April 4, 2020, was performed to identify studies using the "COVID 19 testing" and "meta-analysis." FDA website was accessed for the list of tests for emergency use authorization (EUA). Study SelectionManufacturer reported serology tests published in the FDA website were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the selected reports. Data extraction and synthesisThe meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A bivariate analysis using the "random-effects model" was applied for pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the serology test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Subgroup analysis of the diagnostic accuracy with lag time between symptom onset and testing were studied. ResultsSeven manufacturer listed reports were included. The pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI, 78% - 93%), the pooled specificity was 100% (95% CI, 97% - 100%), and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97. At [&le;] 7 days, sensitivity was 44% (95% CI, 21% - 70%), and for 8-14 days, sensitivity was 84% (95% CI, 67 % - 94%).For blood draws [&ge;] 15 days after the onset of symptoms, sensitivity was 96% (95% CI, 93% - 98%). Heterogeneity was substantial, and the risk of bias was low in this analysis. Conclusions and relevanceFDA authorized serology tests demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection (certainty of evidence: moderate). There is a wide variation in the test accuracy based on the duration between the onset of symptoms and the tests (certainty of evidence: low). Key- points QuestionsWhat is the pooled diagnostic accuracy of FDA authorized serology tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies? FindingsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of seven reports from FDA authorized serology tests to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV2 antibodies (3336 patients/ samples) pooled sensitivity was 87%, and pooled specificity was almost 100%. There was a wide variation in test performance based on the duration between the onset of symptoms and the tests. MeaningFDA authorized tests are highly accurate to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antibodies if tests are performed under a similar condition, as presented in the original report. There is a wide variation in the test performance based on the time interval between the onset of symptoms to the tests.

INTRODUCTIONCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion has emerged in the past months as an alternative approach to treat pneumonia cases of SARS-CoV-2. Current evidence regarding characteristics of the plasma product, the titer of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) in the transfused units, time to onset of intervention, and impact of nAbs produced by the patient are limited and heterogeneous. MATERIAL AND METHODSWe describe the preliminary results of 104 patients with severe pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2 transfused with CCP at three medical centers in Brazil. All enrolled patients were transfused with doses between 200 mL through 600mL of ABO compatible CCP on days 0-2 after enrolment. Clinical parameters were monitored and nAbs titration was performed using the cytopathic effect-based virus neutralization test with SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank MT126808.1). RESULTSForty-one patients achieved clinical improvement on day 14, and multivariable logistic regression showed that nAbs T (from CCP units transfused) (p= 0.001), nAbs P0 (on day of enrolment) (p=0.009) and use of other supportive therapies (p<0.001) were associated with higher odds for this clinical improvement. Considering ICU length of stay (LOS) and length of mechanical ventilation, in our analysis, nAbs P0 were associated with a significant reduction in ICU LOS (p=0.018) and duration of mechanical ventilation (p<0.001). Administration of CCP after 10 days of symptom onset was associated with increases in ICU length of stay (p<0.001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONDespite the study limitations, our data have shown an association between patients previously acquired nAbs and clinical outcomes. The potential value of timely administration of CCP transfusion before day 10 of disease onset was demonstrated and nAbsP0, but not nAbsT, were associated with ICU LOS, and duration of mechanical ventilation on the improvement of clinical outcomes was also demonstrated. In conclusion, we consider these data are useful parameters to guide future CPP transfusion strategies to COVID-19.

BackgroundIn the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitalized patients received empiric hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (HC/CQ). Although some retrospective-observational trials suggested potential benefit, all subsequent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) failed to show benefit and use generally ceased. Herein, we summarize key studies that clinicians advising patients on HC/CQs efficacy:safety calculus in hospitalized COVID-19 patients would want to know about in a practical one-stop-shopping source. MethodsPubmed and Google were searched on November 4, 2021. Search words included: COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, in vitro, animal studies, clinical trials, and meta-analyses. Studies were assessed for import and included if considered impactful for benefit:risk assessment. ResultsThese searches led to inclusion of 12 in vitro and animal reports; 12 retrospective-observational trials, 19 interventional clinical trials (17 RCTs, 1 single-arm, 1 controlled but unblinded), and 51 meta-analyses in hospitalized patients. Inconsistent efficacy was seen in vitro and in animal studies for coronaviruses and nil in SARS-CoV-2 animal models specifically. Most retrospective-observational studies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients found no efficacy; QT prolongation and increased adverse events and mortality were reported in some. All RCTs and almost all meta-analyses provided robust data showing no benefit in overall populations and subgroups, yet concerning safety issues in many. ConclusionsHC/CQ have inconsistent anti-coronavirus efficacy in vitro and in animal models, and no convincing efficacy yet substantial safety issues in the overwhelming majority of retrospective-observational trials, RCTs, and meta-analyses in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. HC/CQ should not be prescribed for hospitalized COVID-19 patients outside of clinical trials. Key Summary PointsPreclinical hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine in vitro studies found inconsistent activity against coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2. Preclinical hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine animals studies found inconsistent efficacy for coronaviruses in general and none for SARS-CoV-2. The overhwelming majority of RCTs and retrospective-observational trials found no benefit for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and many found concerning safety signals. The majority of RCTs and retrospective-observational trials found no benefit for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine in COVID-19 outpatients or for pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis, and some found concerning safety signals. The overwhelming majority of meta-analyses found no benefit for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine in COVID-19 inpatients, outpatients, or for prophylaxis, and many found concerning safety signals.

BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a commercial point-of-care test, the FebriDx lateral flow device (LFD), in adult patients with suspected COVID-19. The FebriDx LFD is designed to distinguish between viral and bacterial respiratory infection. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar, LitCovid, ClinicalTrials.gov and preprint servers on the 13th of January 2021 to identify studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx (myxovirus resistance protein A component) versus real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 in adult patients suspected of COVID-19. IPD were sought from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Studies were screened for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate linear mixed model was fitted to the data to obtain a pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of the model was constructed. A sub-group analysis was performed by meta-regression using the same modelling approach to compare pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity between patients with a symptom duration of 0 to 7 days and >7 days, and patients aged between 16 to 73 years and >73 years. ResultsTen studies were screened, and three studies with a total of 1481 patients receiving hospital care were included. FebriDx produced an estimated pooled sensitivity of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.855-0.946) and specificity of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.802-0.915) compared to RT-PCR. There were no significant differences between the sub-groups of 0 to 7 days and >7 days in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.473) or specificity (p = 0.853). There were also no significant differences between the sub-groups of 16 to 73 years of age and >73 years of age in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.946) or specificity (p = 0.486). ConclusionsBased on the results of three studies, the FebriDx LFD had high diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 in a hospital setting, however, the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies included, risk of bias, and inconsistent reference standards. Further research is required to confirm these findings, and determine how FebriDx would perform in different healthcare settings and patient populations. Trial registrationThis study was conducted at pace as part of the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR) national test evaluation programme (https://www.condor-platform.org), and as a result, no protocol was developed, and the study was not registered. Lay summaryTests to diagnose COVID-19 are crucial to help control the spread of the disease and to guide treatment. Over the last few months, tests have been developed to diagnose COVID-19 either by detecting the presence of the virus or by detecting specific markers linked to the virus being active in the body. These tests use complex machines in laboratories accepting samples from large geographical areas. Sometimes it takes days for test results to come back. So, to reduce the wait for results, new portable tests are being developed. These point-of-care (POC) tests are designed to work close to where patients require assessment and care such as hospital emergency departments, GP surgeries or care homes. For these new POC tests to be useful, they should ideally be as good as standard laboratory tests. In this study we looked at published research into a new test called FebriDx. FebriDx is a POC test that detects the bodys response to infection, and is claimed to be able to detect the presence of any viral infection, including infections due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19, as well as bacterial infections which can have similar symptoms. The FebriDx result was compared with standard laboratory tests for COVID-19 performed on the same patients throat and nose swab sample. We were able to analyse data from three studies with a total of 1481 adult patients who were receiving hospital care with symptoms of COVID-19 during the UK pandemic. Approximately one fifth of the patients were diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus using standard laboratory tests for COVID-19. Our analysis demonstrated that FebriDx correctly identified 91 out of 100 patients who had COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. FebriDx also correctly identified 87 out of 100 patients who did not have COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. These results have important implications for how these tests could be used. As there were slightly fewer FebriDx false results when the results of the standard laboratory test were positive (9 out of 100) than when the results of the standard laboratory test were negative (13 out of 100), we can have slightly more confidence in a positive test result using FebriDx than a negative FebriDx result. Overall, we have shown that the FebriDx POC test performed well during the UK COVID-19 pandemic when compared with laboratory tests, especially when COVID-19 was indicated. For the future, this means that the FebriDx POC test might be helpful in making a quick clinical decision on whether to isolate a patient with COVID-19-like symptoms arriving in a busy emergency department. However, our results indicate it would not completely replace the need to conduct a laboratory test in certain cases to confirm COVID-19. There are limitations to our findings. For example, we do not know if FebriDx will work in a similar way with patients in different settings such as in the community or care homes. Similarly, we do not know whether other viral and bacterial infections which cause similar COVID-19 symptoms, and are more common in the autumn and winter months, could influence the FebriDx test accuracy. Our findings are also only based on three studies.

Point-of-care assays offer a decentralized and fast solution to the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, providing benefits for patients, healthcare workers and healthcare facilities. This technology has the potential to prevent outbreaks, enable fast adoption of potentially life-saving measures and improve hospital workflow. While reviews regarding the laboratory performance of those assays exist, a review focused on the real-life clinical performance and true point-of-care feasibility of those platforms is missing. Therefore, the objective of this study is to help clinicians, healthcare providers and organizations to understand the real-life performance of point-of-care assays, aiding in their implementation in decentralised, true point-of-care facilities, or inside hospitals. 1246 studies were screened in 3 databases and 87 studies were included, evaluating 27 antigen tests and 11 nucleic-acid amplification platforms deemed feasible for true point-of-care placement. We excluded studies that used processed samples, pre-selected populations, archived samples and laboratory-only evaluations and strongly favored prospective trial designs. We also investigated package inserts, instructions for use, comments on published studies and manufacturers websites in order to assess feasibility of point-of-care placement and additional information of relevance to the end-user. Apart from performance in the form of sensitivity and specificity, we present information on time to results, hands-on time, kit storage, machine operating conditions and regulatory status. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review to systematically compare point-of-care test performance in real-life clinical practice. We found the performance of tests in clinical practice to be markedly different from the manufacturers reported performance and laboratory- only evaluations in the majority of scenarios. Our findings may help in the decision-making process related to SARS-CoV-2 test in real-life clinical settings. Rationale for the reviewA review focused on the real-life clinical performance and point-of-care feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic platforms is missing, impairing the ability of individuals, healthcare providers and test providers to make informed decisions. Objective(s) or question(s) the review addressesThe objective of this study is to help clinicians, healthcare providers and organizations to understand the real-life performance of point-of-care assays, aiding in their implementation in decentralised, true point-of-care facilities or in complex healthcare environments.