Clinical Outcomes of Rapid Respiratory Virus Testing in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Rapid tests for respiratory viruses, including multiplex panels, are increasingly available in emergency departments (EDs). Their association with patient outcomes remains unclear. Objective: To determine if ED rapid respiratory virus testing in patients with suspected acute respiratory infection (ARI) was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, and ED return visits and hospitalization and increased influenza antiviral treatment. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science from 1985 to November 14, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of patients of any age with ARI in an ED. The primary intervention was rapid viral testing. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (T.S. and K.W.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias, version 2.0. Estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: Antibiotic use and secondary outcomes were pooled separately as risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates with 95% CIs. Results: Of 7157 studies identified, 11 (0.2%; n = 6068 patients) were included in pooled analyses. Routine rapid viral testing was not associated with antibiotic use (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05; high certainty) but was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.75; moderate certainty) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98; moderate certainty) and blood tests (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97; moderate certainty). There was no association with urine testing (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.17; low certainty), ED length of stay (0 hours; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.16; moderate certainty), return visits (RR, 0.93; 95%, CI 0.79-1.08; moderate certainty) or hospitalization (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.08; high certainty). Adults represented 963 participants (16%). There was no association of viral testing with antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup by age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that there are limited benefits of routine viral testing in EDs for patients with ARI. Further studies in adults, especially those with high-risk conditions, are warranted.

Emergency Department point-of-care antiviral host response testing is accurate during periods of multiple respiratory virus co-circulation.

OBJECTIVES: FebriDx is a CE-marked, FDA-approved point-of-care test that detects the antiviral host response protein Myxovirus Resistance Protein A (MxA), in addition to C-reactive protein, using finger-prick blood. FebriDx MxA detection had a high negative predictive value for COVID-19 in symptomatic adults presenting to hospital in the first waves of the pandemic and was used subsequently as a 'rule out' triage tool in Emergency departments. The diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx MxA in the current context of co-circulation of influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), and in the era of COVID-19 vaccination, is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of FebriDx MxA in adults with acute respiratory symptoms presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of a large UK teaching hospital using Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV). RESULTS: Between March 9th 2022 and March 8th 2023, 5426 patients had both FebriDx and RT-PCR testing with valid results. 999 (18.4%) of patients had influenza detected, 520 (9.6%) SARS-CoV-2, and 190 (3.5%) RSV. Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of MxA detection by FebriDx was 97.5% (96.9-98.0) for influenza, 97.1% (96.4-97.7) for SARS-CoV-2, 98.1% (97.5-98.6) for RSV, and 92.8% (91.8-93.7) for all viruses combined. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic adults, FebriDx MxA had a high NPV for influenza and RSV, and retained a high NPV for SARS-CoV-2, in the context of virus co-circulation and widespread COVID-19 vaccination. FebriDx continues to be a useful 'rule out' triage tool in the ED and could potentially be scaled to provide a national triage solution for future viral pandemics.

Clinical impact of syndromic molecular point-of-care testing for gastrointestinal pathogens in adults hospitalised with suspected gastroenteritis (GastroPOC): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-occupancy isolation rooms are a finite resource in UK hospitals but are crucial in preventing transmission of infection. Patients with suspected gastroenteritis are nursed in single-occupancy rooms, but delays in laboratory testing lead to non-infectious patients remaining isolated for prolonged periods unnecessarily. Rapid molecular test panels for gastrointestinal pathogens have a run time of around 1 h but their clinical impact is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of syndromic molecular point-of-care testing (mPOCT) for gastrointestinal pathogens in adult patients presenting to hospital with suspected gastroenteritis on single-occupancy room use and a range of other outcome measures. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled adults hospitalised with suspected gastroenteritis in a large UK hospital. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive syndromic mPOCT of stool or rectal samples, or to routine clinical care (control) with laboratory testing. The primary outcome was the duration of time in single-occupancy rooms assessed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included the time to results, time to de-isolation, antibiotic use, and safety outcomes. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN88918395, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017 and March 17, 2020, from 455 patients assessed for eligibility, we enrolled 278 patients, 138 assigned to mPOCT (one withdrawal) and 140 to the control group. The duration (geometric mean) of single-occupancy room isolation was 1·8 days (95% CI 1·5-2·2) in the mPOCT group compared with 2·6 days (2·2-3·0) in the control group (exponentiated coefficient 0·70 [95% CI 0·56 to 0·87]; p=0·0017). The median (IQR) time to results was 1·7 h (1·5-2·0) for mPOCT and 44·7 h (21·2-66·1) for the control group (p<0·0001). Time to de-isolation was 0·6 days (0·3-1·8) in the mPOCT group compared with 2·2 days (1·2-3·2) in the control group, (p<0·0001). Antibiotics were given in 89 (65%) of 137 in the mPOCT group and 66 (47%) of 140 in the control group (p=0·0028). There were no differences between groups in length of hospital stay, or in safety outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit admission, or readmission to hospital. INTERPRETATION: mPOCT for gastrointestinal pathogens in patients with suspected gastroenteritis returned results more rapidly than conventional testing and was associated with a reduction in single-occupancy room use. However, these benefits need to be balanced against a potential increase in antibiotic use. FUNDING: University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.

Blood gene expression predicts intensive care unit admission in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. Tools that can stratify individuals according to prognosis could allow for more efficient allocation of healthcare resources and thus improved patient outcomes. It is currently unclear if blood gene expression signatures derived from patients at the point of admission to hospital could provide useful prognostic information. Methods: Gene expression of whole blood obtained at the point of admission from a cohort of 78 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the first wave was measured by high resolution RNA sequencing. Gene signatures predictive of admission to Intensive Care Unit were identified and tested using machine learning and topological data analysis, TopMD. Results: The best gene expression signature predictive of ICU admission was defined using topological data analysis with an accuracy: 0.72 and ROC AUC: 0.76. The gene signature was primarily based on differentially activated pathways controlling epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) presentation, Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPAR-α) signalling and Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-ß) signalling. Conclusions: Gene expression signatures from blood taken at the point of admission to hospital predicted ICU admission of treatment naïve patients with COVID-19.

Evaluating the Immune Response in Treatment-Naive Hospitalised Patients With Influenza and COVID-19.

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has claimed millions of lives and has had a profound effect on global life. Understanding the body's immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial in improving patient management and prognosis. In this study we compared influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infected patient cohorts to identify distinct blood transcript abundances and cellular composition to better understand the natural immune response associated with COVID-19, compared to another viral infection being influenza, and identify a prognostic signature of COVID-19 patient outcome. Clinical characteristics and peripheral blood were acquired upon hospital admission from two well characterised cohorts, a cohort of 88 patients infected with influenza and a cohort of 80 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of the pandemic and prior to availability of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. Gene transcript abundances, enriched pathways and cellular composition were compared between cohorts using RNA-seq. A genetic signature between COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors was assessed as a prognostic predictor of COVID-19 outcome. Contrasting immune responses were detected with an innate response elevated in influenza and an adaptive response elevated in COVID-19. Additionally ribosomal, mitochondrial oxidative stress and interferon signalling pathways differentiated the cohorts. An adaptive immune response was associated with COVID-19 survival, while an inflammatory response predicted death. A prognostic transcript signature, associated with circulating immunoglobulins, nucleosome assembly, cytokine production and T cell activation, was able to stratify COVID-19 patients likely to survive or die. This study provides a unique insight into the immune responses of treatment naïve patients with influenza or COVID-19. The comparison of immune response between COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors enables prognostication of COVID-19 patients and may suggest potential therapeutic strategies to improve survival.

Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

INTRODUCTION: RT-PCR has suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. A composite reference standard comprising RT-PCR plus radiological and clinical features has been recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies. The FebriDx finger prick point-of-care test detects an antiviral host response protein (MxA) in 10 min. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx and RT-PCR compared to a composite reference standard. METHODS: Adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19 were tested by FebriDx and RT-PCR. A composite reference standard was used to classify patients as having COVID-19 based on RT-PCR positivity, or RT-PCR negativity with COVID-19 radiological findings or other clinical criteria. Measures of accuracy were calculated for MxA alone, RT-PCR alone, and both combined. This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and has completed. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients were tested, with valid results in 475. Of these 475 patients, 222 (46.7%) were classified as having COVID-19; 192 (40.4%) were RT-PCR positive, and 30 (6.3%) were RT-PCR negative and diagnosed on radiological/clinical criteria. Sensitivity of FebriDx MxA vs the composite reference standard was 186/222 (83.8%, 95% CI 78.3-88.4) and was similar to the sensitivity of RT-PCR (192/222 (86.5%, 95% CI 81.3-90.7), (difference of 2.7%, 95% CI - 3.9 to 9.3, p = 0.42). The sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR was 208/222 (93.7%) which was superior to both RT-PCR alone (difference of 9.9, 95% CI 4.1-15.9; p = 0.001) and FebriDx MxA alone (difference of 7.2, 95% CI 1.6-12.9; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR testing was superior to each alone for the detection of COVID-19 in hospital and may improve infection control and treatment decisions.

Routine molecular point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 reduces hospital-acquired COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19) infection is increased by cohorting infected and non-infected patients together in assessment areas, whist awaiting laboratory PCR results. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCT) reduce time to results and improve patient flow but the impact on HA-COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS: In this pre and post implementation study patients were evaluated across two time periods: March 1st to August 13th 2020, prior to the introduction of mPOCT in medical admissions areas, and 14th August 2020 to 1st April 2021, after mPOCT introduction. The primary outcome was proportion of HA-COVID-19 infection among all COVID-19 positive patients. Secondary outcome measures included time to SARS-CoV-2 results, length of time spent in the medical assessment area and comparison of local, regional and national proportions of HA-COVID-19. RESULTS: 1988 patients were admitted through the acute medicine admission cohorting area and tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to introducing mPOCT and 4640 afterwards. Median (IQR) time to SARS-CoV-2 result was 6.5 (2.1-17.9) hours prior to introducing mPOCT and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). Median (IQR) duration in the assessment cohort area was 12.0 (4.8-20.6) hours prior to introduction of POCT and 3.2 (2.0-5.6) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). The proportion of hospital-acquired COVID-19 cases was 108 (16.5%) of 654 prior to introducing mPOCT compared with 168 (9.4%) of 1782 afterwards, (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.70; p < 0.0001). In the period following the introduction of mPOCT up to 1st April 2021 the median proportion of HA-COVID-19 was 13.6% (95%CI 8.2-18.9%) locally, compared with 43.8% (95%CI 37.8-49.9%) for all acute NHS trusts regionally and 30.9% (95%CI 28.4-33.5%) for all NHS trusts nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Routine mPOCT for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with reduced time to results, time spent in admission cohort areas, and hospital-acquired COVID-19, compared to laboratory PCR.

FebriDx host response point-of-care testing improves patient triage for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Patients presenting to hospital with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), based on clinical symptoms, are routinely placed in a cohort together until polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results are available. This procedure leads to delays in transfers to definitive areas and high nosocomial transmission rates. FebriDx is a finger-prick point-of-care test (PoCT) that detects an antiviral host response and has a high negative predictive value for COVID-19. We sought to determine the clinical impact of using FebriDx for COVID-19 triage in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: We undertook a retrospective observational study evaluating the real-world clinical impact of FebriDx as part of an ED COVID-19 triage algorithm. SETTING: Emergency department of a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, placed in a cohort in a 'high-risk' area, were tested using FebriDx. Patients without a detectable antiviral host response were then moved to a lower-risk area. RESULTS: Between September 22, 2020, and January 7, 2021, 1,321 patients were tested using FebriDx, and 1,104 (84%) did not have a detectable antiviral host response. Among 1,104 patients, 865 (78%) were moved to a lower-risk area within the ED. The median times spent in a high-risk area were 52 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 34-92) for FebriDx-negative patients and 203 minutes (IQR, 142-255) for FebriDx-positive patients (difference of -134 minutes; 95% CI, -144 to -122; P < .0001). The negative predictive value of FebriDx for the identification of COVID-19 was 96% (661 of 690; 95% CI, 94%-97%). CONCLUSIONS: FebriDx improved the triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 and reduced the time that severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR-negative patients spent in a high-risk area alongside SARS-CoV-2-positive patients.

A SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid ELISA represents a low-cost alternative to lateral flow testing for community screening in LMI countries.

Background Controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is problematic because of transmission driven by asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals. Community screening can help identify these individuals but is often too expensive for countries with limited health care resources. Low-cost ELISA assays may address this problem, but their use has not yet been widely reported. Methods We developed a SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid ELISA and assessed its diagnostic performance on nose and throat swab samples from UK hospitalised patients and sputum samples from patients in Ghana. Results The ELISA had a limit of detection of 8.4 pg/ml antigen and 16 pfu/ml virus. When tested on UK samples (128 positive and 10 negative patients), sensitivity was 58.6% (49.6-67.2) rising to 78.3% (66.7-87.3) if real-time PCR Ct values > 30 were excluded, while specificity was 100% (69.2-100). In a second trial using the Ghanaian samples (121 positive, 96 negative), sensitivity was 52% (42.8-61.2) rising to 72.6% (61.8-81.2) when a > 30 Ct cut-off was applied, while specificity was 100% (96.2-100). Conclusions: Our data show that nucleocapsid ELISAs can test a variety of patient sample types while achieving levels of sensitivity and specificity required for effective community screening. Further investigations into the opportunities that this provides are warranted.

Safety and Immunogenicity of ChAd63/MVA Pfs25-IMX313 in a Phase I First-in-Human Trial.

Background: Transmission blocking vaccines targeting the sexual-stages of the malaria parasite could play a major role to achieve elimination and eradication of malaria. The Plasmodium falciparum Pfs25 protein (Pfs25) is the most clinically advanced candidate sexual-stage antigen. IMX313, a complement inhibitor C4b-binding protein that forms heptamers with the antigen fused to it, improve antibody responses. This is the first time that viral vectors have been used to induce antibodies in humans against an antigen that is expressed only in the mosquito vector. Methods: Clinical trial looking at safety and immunogenicity of two recombinant viral vectored vaccines encoding Pfs25-IMX313 in healthy malaria-naive adults. Replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus serotype 63 (ChAd63) and the attenuated orthopoxvirus modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA), encoding Pfs25-IMX313, were delivered by the intramuscular route in a heterologous prime-boost regimen using an 8-week interval. Safety data and samples for immunogenicity assays were taken at various time-points. Results: The reactogenicity of the vaccines was similar to that seen in previous trials using the same viral vectors encoding other antigens. The vaccines were immunogenic and induced both antibody and T cell responses against Pfs25, but significant transmission reducing activity (TRA) was not observed in most volunteers by standard membrane feeding assay. Conclusion: Both vaccines were well tolerated and demonstrated a favorable safety profile in malaria-naive adults. However, the transmission reducing activity of the antibodies generated were weak, suggesting the need for an alternative vaccine formulation. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02532049.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load at presentation to hospital is independently associated with the risk of death.

Objectives Previous studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 viral load, measured on upper respiratory tract samples at presentation to hospital using PCR Cycle threshold (Ct) value, has prognostic utility. However, these studies have not comprehensively adjusted for factors known to be intimately related to viral load. We aimed to evaluate the association between Ct value at admission and patient outcome whilst adjusting carefully for covariates. Methods We evaluated the association between Ct value at presentation and the outcomes of ICU admission and death, in patients hospitalised during the first wave of the pandemic in Southampton, UK. We adjusted for covariates including age, duration of illness and antibody sero-status, measured by neutralisation assay. Results 185 patients were analysed, with a median [IQR] Ct value of 27.9 [22.6-32.1]. On univariate analysis the Ct value at presentation was associated with the risk of both ICU admission and death. In addition, Ct value significantly differed according to age, the duration of illness at presentation and antibody sero-status. On multivariate analysis, Ct value was independently associated with risk of death (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.96; p = 0.011) but not ICU admission (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.16; p = 0.507). Neutralising antibody status at presentation was not associated with mortality or ICU admission (aOR 10.62, 95% CI 0.47-889; p = 0.199 and aOR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10-2.00; p = 0.302, respectively). Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 Ct value on admission to hospital was independently associated with mortality, when comprehensively adjusting for other factors and could be used for risk stratification.

Reduced blood-stage malaria growth and immune correlates in humans following RH5 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Development of an effective vaccine against the pathogenic blood-stage infection of human malaria has proved challenging, and no candidate vaccine has affected blood-stage parasitemia following controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) with blood-stage Plasmodium falciparum. METHODS: We undertook a phase I/IIa clinical trial in healthy adults in the United Kingdom of the RH5.1 recombinant protein vaccine, targeting the P. falciparum reticulocyte-binding protein homolog 5 (RH5), formulated in AS01B adjuvant. We assessed safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy against blood-stage CHMI. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02927145. FINDINGS: The RH5.1/AS01B formulation was administered using a range of RH5.1 protein vaccine doses (2, 10, and 50 µg) and was found to be safe and well tolerated. A regimen using a delayed and fractional third dose, in contrast to three doses given at monthly intervals, led to significantly improved antibody response longevity over ∼2 years of follow-up. Following primary and secondary CHMI of vaccinees with blood-stage P. falciparum, a significant reduction in parasite growth rate was observed, defining a milestone for the blood-stage malaria vaccine field. We show that growth inhibition activity measured in vitro using purified immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody strongly correlates with in vivo reduction of the parasite growth rate and also identify other antibody feature sets by systems serology, including the plasma anti-RH5 IgA1 response, that are associated with challenge outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide a new framework to guide rational design and delivery of next-generation vaccines to protect against malaria disease. FUNDING: This study was supported by USAID, UK MRC, Wellcome Trust, NIAID, and the NIHR Oxford-BRC.

Influenza vaccination: protecting the most vulnerable.

Influenza virus infection causes seasonal epidemics and occasional pandemics, leading to huge morbidity and mortality worldwide. Vaccination against influenza is needed annually as protection from constantly mutating strains is required. Groups at high risk of poor outcomes include the elderly, the very young, pregnant women and those with chronic health conditions. However, vaccine effectiveness in the elderly is generally poor due to immunosenescence and may be altered due to "original antigenic sin". Strategies to overcome these challenges in the elderly include high-dose or adjuvant vaccines. Other options include vaccinating healthcare workers and children as this reduces community-level influenza transmission. Current guidelines in the UK are that young children receive a live attenuated nasal spray vaccine, adults aged >65 years receive an adjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine and adults aged <65 years with comorbidities receive a quadrivalent inactivated vaccine. The goal of a universal influenza vaccine targeting conserved regions of the virus and avoiding the need for annual vaccination is edging closer with early-phase trials under way.

Clinical impact of a routine, molecular, point-of-care, test-and-treat strategy for influenza in adults admitted to hospital (FluPOC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of influenza in patients admitted to hospital is delayed due to long turnaround times with laboratory testing, leading to inappropriate and late antiviral treatment and isolation facility use. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCTs) are highly accurate, easy to use, and generate results in less than 1 h, but high-quality evidence for their effect on management and clinical outcomes is needed. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of an mPOCT on influenza detection, antiviral use, infection control measures, and clinical outcomes in adults admitted to hospital with acute respiratory illness. METHODS: In this multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial (FluPOC), we recruited adults admitted to hospital with acute respiratory illness during influenza seasons from two hospitals in Hampshire, UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, with acute respiratory illness of 10 days or fewer duration before admission to hospital, who were recruited within 16 h of admission to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using random permuted blocks of varying sizes (4, 6 and 8), to receive mPOCT for influenza or routine clinical care (control group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients infected with influenza who were treated appropriately with antivirals (neuraminidase inhibitors) within 5 days of admission. Safety was assessed in all patients. Secondary outcomes included time to antivirals, isolation facility use, and clinical outcomes. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17197293, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2017, and May 3, 2019, over two influenza seasons, 613 patients were enrolled, of whom 307 were assigned to the mPOCT group and 306 to the control group, and all were analysed. Median age was 62 years (IQR 45-75) and 332 (54%) of 612 participants with data were female. 100 (33%) of 307 patients in the mPOCT group and 102 (33%) of 306 in the control group had influenza. 100 (100%) of 100 patients with influenza were diagnosed in the mPOCT group and 60 (59%) of 102 were diagnosed though routine clinical care in the control group (relative risk 1·7, 95% CI 1·7-1·7; p<0·0001). 99 (99%) of 100 patients with influenza in the mPOCT group were given antiviral treatment within 5 days of admission versus 63 (62%) 102 in the control group (relative risk 1·6, 95% CI 1·4-1·9; p<0·0001). Median time to antivirals was 1·0 h (IQR 0·0 to 2·0) in the mPOCT group versus 6·0 h (0·0 to 12·0) in the control group (difference of 5·0 h [95% CI 0·0-6·0; p=0·0039]). 70 (70%) of 100 patients with influenza in the mPOCT group were isolated to single-room accommodation versus 39 (38%) of 102 in the control group (relative risk 1·8 [95% CI 1·4-2·4; p<0·0001]). 19 adverse events occurred among patients with influenza in the mPOCT group compared with 34 events in the control group. No patients with influenza died in the mPOCT group and two (2%) died in the control group (p=0·16). INTERPRETATION: Routine mPOCT for influenza was associated with improved influenza detection and improvements in appropriate and timely antiviral and isolation facility use. Routine mPOCT should replace laboratory-based diagnostics for acute admissions to hospital during the influenza season. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

SARS-CoV-2 has displaced other seasonal respiratory viruses: Results from a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of SARS-CoV-2 on existing respiratory viruses in circulation and the overall burden of viral respiratory disease remains uncertain. Traditionally, severe viral respiratory disease disproportionally affects those with underlying chronic lung diseases. This study aimed to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the prevalence and clinical characteristics of respiratory virus disease in hospitalised adults. METHODS: Data for this cohort study were from hospitalised adults who had multiplex PCR testing for respiratory viruses over several seasons in Hampshire, UK. Respiratory virus detection during the first epidemic peak of SARS-CoV-2 was compared to detection during the same time period across previous years. RESULTS: 856 patients had multiplex PCR for respiratory viruses between March and May over 5 years. Before 2020, a non-SARS-CoV-2 virus was detected in 54% patients (202/371) compared to 4.1% (20/485) in 2020 (p < 0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 was associated with asthma or COPD exacerbations in a smaller proportion of infected patients compared to other viruses (1.0% vs 37%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 was associated with substantial reductions in the circulation of seasonal respiratory viruses and large differences in the characteristics of viral-associated disease, including illness in a greater proportion of patients without underlying lung disease.

Clinical impact of molecular point-of-care testing for suspected COVID-19 in hospital (COV-19POC): a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals, these delays lead to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission. Rapid, accurate tests are therefore urgently needed in preparation for the next wave of the pandemic. METHODS: We did a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study of molecular point-of-care testing in patients aged 18 years or older presenting with suspected COVID-19 to the emergency department or other acute areas of Southampton General Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK. Nose and throat swab samples taken at admission from patients in the point-of-care testing group were tested with the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Samples taken from patients in a contemporaneous control group were tested by laboratory PCR. The primary outcome was time to results in the full cohort. This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and April 29, 2020, 517 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 499 were recruited to the point-of-care testing group and tested by the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. 555 contemporaneously identified patients were included in the control group and tested by laboratory PCR. The two groups were similar with regard to the distribution of sex, age, and ethnicity. 197 (39%) patients in the point-of-care testing group and 155 (28%) in the control group tested positive for COVID-19 (difference 11·5% [95% CI 5·8-17·2], p=0·0001). Median time to results was 1·7 h (IQR 1·6-1·9) in the point-of-care testing group and 21·3 h (16·0-27·9) in the control group (difference 19·6 h [19·0-20·3], p<0·0001). A Cox proportional hazards regression model controlling for age, sex, time of presentation, and severity of illness also showed that time to results was significantly shorter in the point-of-care testing group than in the control group (hazard ratio 4023 [95% CI 545-29 696], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Point-of-care testing is associated with large reductions in time to results and could lead to improvements in infection control measures and patient flow compared with centralised laboratory PCR testing. FUNDING: University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.

Clinical characteristics, symptoms and outcomes of 1054 adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19: A comparison of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVES: Most reports describing the characteristics of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 lack a comparator group. We compared clinical characteristics, symptoms, and outcomes of adults presenting to hospital during the pandemic first wave, who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Detailed patient data was obtained from a large, controlled, non-randomised trial of molecular point-of-care testing versus laboratory RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in adults presenting to a large UK hospital with suspected COVID-19. RESULTS: 1054 patients were included: 352 (33.4%) tested positive and 702 (66.6%) negative. 13.4% (47/352) COVID-19-positive patients had COPD versus 18.7% (131/702) of COVID-19-negative patients (difference=5.3% [95%CI -9.7% to -0.5%], p = 0.0297). 5.7% (20/352) of COVID-19-positive patients were smokers versus 16.5% (116/702) of negative patients (difference=-10.8% [-14.4% to -7.0%], p = 0.0001). 70.5% (248/352) of COVID-19-positive patients were White-British versus 85.5% (600/702) of negative patients (difference=-15.0% [-20.5% to -9.7%], p<0.0001). 20.9% (39/187) of COVID-19-positive patients were healthcare workers versus 5.2% (15/287) of negative patients (p<0.0001). Anosmia was reported in 33.1% (47/142) versus 8.8% (19/216) of COVID-19-positive and negative patients respectively (p<0.0001). Non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses or atypical bacteria were detected in 2.5% (5/197) of COVID-19 patients versus 7.9% (24/302) of COVID-19-negative patients (p = 0.0109). Hospitalisation duration and 30-day-mortality were higher in COVID-19 patients and invasive ventilation was more frequent (11.1% vs 2.8%, p<0.0001), and longer (14.5 vs 4.7 days, p = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial differences between patients with and without COVID-19 in terms of ethnicity, healthcare worker-status, comorbidities, symptoms, and outcomes. These data can inform healthcare planning for the next phase of the pandemic.