Clinical Performance of the Point-of-Care cobas Liat for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 20 Minutes: a Multicenter Study.

Highly accurate testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the point of care (POC) is an unmet diagnostic need in emergency care and time-sensitive outpatient care settings. Reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) technology is the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. We performed a multisite U.S. study comparing the clinical performance of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized POC RT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 20 min, the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B nucleic acid test, to the most widely used RT-PCR laboratory test, the cobas 68/8800 SARS-CoV-2 test. Clinical nasopharyngeal swab specimens from 444 patients with 357 evaluable specimens at five U.S. clinical laboratories were enrolled from 21 September 2020 to 23 October 2020. The overall agreement between the Liat and 68/8800 systems for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics was 98.6% (352/357). Using Liat, positive percent agreement for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% (162/162) and the negative percent agreement was 97.4% (190/195). The Liat is an RT-PCR POC test that provides highly accurate SARS-CoV-2 results in 20 min with performance equivalent to that of high-throughput laboratory molecular testing. Rapid RT-PCR testing at the POC can enable more timely infection control and individual care decisions for coronavirus disease 2019

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Clinical Sensitivity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Diagnosing Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Utilizing 34 348 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) results from 2 health systems, we estimated the clinical sensitivity of a single SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. We found that SARS-CoV-2 NAAT has 82%-97% sensitivity for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 among symptomatic patients

Mycobacterial Growth and Bacterial Contamination in the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube and BACTEC 460 Culture Systems.

The BACTEC 460 system currently provides the most rapid detection of mycobacterial growth, but the system is radiometric and requires needles to inoculate specimens through the bottle\u27s septum. The Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) system has a liquid medium, like the BACTEC system, and does not require needles when inoculating specimens. We compared mycobacterial growth from 510 specimens in the two systems. Average time to acid-fast bacillus (AFB) detection and identification to the species level was less with the BACTEC system, but this result was statistically significant only for AFB detection in specimens containing Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex. The contamination rate with MGIT was 29%; the BACTEC rate was 5%. To investigate MGIT contamination, we initiated a second study with changes in specimen processing. The MGIT contamination rate was reduced to 12%; the BACTEC rate was not significantly affected (5.5%). The most likely explanation for the contamination in MGIT is the richness of its medium compared to the BACTEC medium. Cost analysis for the two systems in a laboratory that processes 4,500 specimens a year is presented. The data suggest that the BACTEC 460 and the MGIT systems are approximately equivalent in cost and ability to support the growth of AFB. The MGIT system appears safer and easier to use and was preferred by laboratory personnel, but it cannot currently be used for blood specimens or antituberculosis susceptibility testing

Rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in <i>in vitro</i> endophthalmitis with matrix assisted laser desorption-ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry and VITEK 2 without prior culture

Purpose: Prompt clinical diagnosis and initiation of treatment are critical in the management of infectious endophthalmitis. Current methods used to identify causative agents of infectious endophthalmitis are mostly inefficient, owing to suboptimal sensitivity, length, and cost. Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) can be used to rapidly identity pathogens without a need for culture. Similarly, automated antimicrobial susceptibility test systems (AST, VITEK 2) provide accurate antimicrobial susceptibility profiles. In this proof-of-concept study, we apply these technologies for the direct identification and characterization of pathogens in vitreous samples, without culture, as an in vitro model of infectious endophthalmitis. Methods: Vitreous humor aspirated from freshly enucleated porcine eyes was inoculated with different inocula of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and incubated at 37°C. Vitreous endophthalmitis samples were centrifuged and pellets were directly analyzed with MALDI-TOF MS and VITEK 2 without prior culture. S. aureus colonies that were conventionally grown on culture medium were used as control samples. Time-to-identification, minimum concentration of bacteria required for identification, and accuracy of results compared to standard methods were determined. Results: MALDI-TOF MS achieved accurate pathogen identification from direct analysis of intraocular samples with confidence values of up to 99.9%. Time from sample processing to pathogen identification was Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that the direct analysis of vitreous samples with MALDI-TOF MS and VITEK 2 without prior culture could serve as new, improved methods for rapid, accurate pathogen identification and targeted treatment design in infectious endophthalmitis. In vivo models and standardized comparisons against other microbiological methods are needed to determine the value of direct analysis of intraocular samples from infectious endophthalmitis with MALDI-TOF MS and VITEK 2.</p