Comparison of the Quantitative DiaSorin Liaison Antigen Test to Reverse Transcription-PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Outpatients.

We evaluated the quantitative DiaSorin Liaison severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals consulting their general practitioners (GPs) during a period of stable intense virus circulation (213/100,000 habitants per day). Leftover reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) positive (n = 204) and negative (n = 210) nasopharyngeal samples were randomly selected among fresh routine samples collected from patients consulting their GPs. Samples were tested on Liaison XL according to the manufacturer's instructions. Equivocal results were considered negative. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Liaison antigen test compared to RT-PCR were 65.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58.9% to 71.9%) and 100% (CI, 97.8% to 100%). Sensitivity in samples with viral loads of ≥105, ≥104, and ≥103 copies/ml were 100% (CI, 96.3% to 100.0%), 96.5% (CI, 91.8% to 98.7%), and 87.4% (CI, 81.3% to 91.5%), respectively. All samples with ≤103 copies/ml were antigen negative. The ratio of antigen concentration to viral load in samples with ≥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% to 72.0%] versus 51.9% [CI, 41.1% to 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% to 46.4%] versus 14.3% [CI, 9.0% to 21.8%]; P < 0.01). Sensitivity and specificity in samples with a viral load of ≥104 copies/ml were 96.5% and 100%. The correlation of antigen concentration with viral load was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

Antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleoprotein evaluated by four automated immunoassays and three ELISAs.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to determine the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleoprotein using four automated immunoassays and three ELISAs for the detection of total Ig antibodies (Roche) or IgG (Abbott, Diasorin, Snibe, Euroimmun, Mikrogen) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Sensitivity and dynamic trend to seropositivity were evaluated in 233 samples from 114 patients with moderate, severe or critical COVID-19 confirmed with PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. Specificity was evaluated in 113 samples collected before January 2020, including 24 samples from patients with non-SARS coronavirus infection. RESULTS: Sensitivity for all assays was 100% (95% confidence interval 83.7-100) 3 weeks after onset of symptoms. Specificity varied between 94.7% (88.7-97.8) and 100% (96.1-100). Calculated at the cut-offs that corresponded to a specificity of 95% and 97.5%, Roche had the highest sensitivity (85.0% (79.8-89.0) and 81.1% (76.6-85.7), p < 0.05 except vs. Abbott). Seroconversion occurred on average 2 days earlier for Roche total Ig anti-N and the three IgG anti-N assays (Abbott, Mikrogen, Euroimmun) than for the two IgG anti-S assays (Diasorin, Euroimmun) (≥50% seroconversion day 9-10 vs. day 11-12 and p < 0.05 for percent seropositive patients day 9-10 to 17-18). There was no significant difference in the IgG antibody time to seroconversion between critical and non-critical patients. DISCUSSION: Seroconversion occurred within 3 weeks after onset of symptoms with all assays and on average 2 days earlier for assays detecting IgG or total Ig anti-N than for IgG anti-S. The specificity of assays detecting anti-N was comparable to anti-S and excellent in a challenging control population.

OPAT: proof of concept in a peripheral Belgian hospital after review of the literature.

Since its introduction in the 1970s in the United States, outpatient parenteral antibiotic/antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been adopted internationally for long-term intravenous (IV) treatment of stable infectious diseases. The aim is to provide a safe and successful completion of IV antimicrobial treatment at the ambulatory care center or at home without complications and costs associated with hospitalization. OPAT implementation has been accelerated by progress in vascular access devices, newly available antibiotics, the emphasis on cost-savings, as well as an improved patient comfort and a reduced incidence of health care associated infections with a similar outcome. OPAT utilization is supported by an extensive published experience and guidelines of the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and the Infectious Diseases Society of America for adults as well as for children. Despite these recommendations and its widespread adoption, in Belgium OPAT is only fully reimbursed and established for cystic fibrosis patients. Possible explanations for this unpopularity include physician unfamiliarity and a lack of uniform funding arrangements with higher costs for the patient. This article aims to briefly review benefits, risks, indications, financial impact for supporting OPAT in a non-university hospital as standard of care. Our experience with OPAT at the ambulatory care center of our hospital and its subsequent recent introduction in the home setting is discussed.

Is analysis of the reticulocyte haemoglobin equivalent a useful test for the diagnosis of iron deficiency anaemia in geriatric patients?

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) and anaemia of chronic disease (ACD) are common in elderly patients but there are no standard diagnostic criteria. The reticulocyte haemoglobin equivalent (Ret-He) is routinely measured by modern automated blood analysers and is an early indicator of iron deficiency. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the Ret-He level as calculated by the Sysmex XE-5000 automated blood analyser is a useful parameter for the diagnosis of IDA in a geriatric hospitalized population. METHODS: In a prospective study, blood samples were collected in 26 geriatric patients with IDA and 111 patients with ACD diagnosed according to generally accepted laboratory and clinical criteria. A blood count including Ret-He, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular haemoglobin (MCH), mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration (MCHC) and standard iron parameters was performed in each patient. RESULTS: Haemoglobin, Ret-He, MCV, MCH and MCHC levels were all significantly lower in IDA as compared to ACD patients. However, the area under the curve (AUC) was greater for MCH (0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.95) and MCHC (0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.96) then for Ret-He (0.828, 95% CI 0.73-0.93) and MCV (0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.91). A Ret-He cut-off value of 26 pg had a sensitivity and specificity based on its optimal combination of 85% and 69% respectively. CONCLUSION: Analysis of Ret-He does not perform better than the classical red cell indices such as MCH and MCHC in differentiating IDA and ACD in geriatric patients.

A simple tool to improve medication reconciliation at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Medication histories acquired upon admission are often incomplete. Using a standardized approach warrants more complete medication reconciliation, however, this is too time consuming to be performed. Other strategies guaranteeing complete medication histories should be explored. We developed a limited list of standardized questions and assessed its impact on completeness of medication histories. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled adults presenting to a tertiary care emergency department. In the control group, medication histories were conducted by physicians of general internal medicine conform standard care. In the intervention group, the physicians were obliged to use, besides the standard care, the 'limited questions list' for medication history acquisition. The clinical pharmacist re-obtained medication histories of the patients in both groups using a standardized approach. The primary outcome was the impact of the use of a 'limited questions list' on the frequency of drug omissions in medication histories. RESULTS: 260 consecutive patients were enrolled: 130 in the intervention group and 130 in the control group. There was a significant reduction of 49.3% in drug omissions in the intervention group. The omission rate per medication history was 1.1 for the control group, which was significantly lower (0.6) in the intervention group. Antithrombotics were most frequently forgotten in the control care group as opposed to dietary supplements in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Drug omission rate in medication histories can be significantly reduced if a limited list of simple questions is used during anamnesis. Widespread use of this tool should be considered to be implemented.

Pharmacist- versus physician-acquired medication history: a prospective study at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature revealed that medication histories obtained by physicians and nurses are often incomplete. However, the number of patients included was often low. Study objective In this study, the authors compare medication histories obtained in the Emergency Department (ED) by pharmacists versus physicians and identify characteristics contributing to discrepancies. METHODS: Medication histories were acquired by the pharmacist from patients admitted to the ED, planned to be hospitalised. A structured form was used to guide the pharmacist or technician to ensure a standardised approach. Discrepancies, defined as any difference between the pharmacist-acquired medication history and that obtained by the physician, were analysed. RESULTS: 3594 medication histories were acquired by pharmacy staff. 59% (95% CI 58.2% to 59.8%) of medication histories recorded by physicians were different from those obtained by the pharmacy staff. Within these inaccurate medication histories, 5963 discrepancies were identified. The most common type of error was omission of a drug (61%; 95% CI 60.4% to 61.6%), followed by omission of dose (18%; 95% CI 17.6% to 18.4%). Drugs belonging to the class of psycholeptics, acid suppressors and beta blocking agents were related to the highest discrepancy rate. Acetylsalicylic acid, omeprazole and zolpidem were most commonly forgotten. CONCLUSION: This large prospective study demonstrates that medication history acquisition is very often incomplete in the ED. A structured form and a standardised method is necessary. Pharmacists are especially suited to acquire and supervise accurate medication histories, as they are educated and familiar with commonly used drugs.