Search

Background: Mass indoor gatherings were banned in early 2020 to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to assess, under controlled conditions, whether infection rates among attendees at a large, indoor gathering event would be similar to those in non-attendees, given implementation of a comprehensive prevention strategy including antigen-screening within 3 days, medical mask wearing, and optimised ventilation., Methods: The non-inferiority, prospective, open-label, randomised, controlled SPRING trial was done on attendees at a live indoor concert held in the Accor Arena on May 29, 2021 in Paris, France. Participants, aged 18-45 years, recruited via a dedicated website, had no comorbidities, COVID-19 symptoms, or recent case contact, and had had a negative rapid antigen diagnostic test within 3 days before the concert. Participants were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to the experimental group (attendees) or to the control group (non-attendees). The allocation sequence was computer-generated by means of permuted blocks of sizes three, six, or nine, with no stratification. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients who were SARS-CoV-2-positive by RT-PCR test on self-collected saliva 7 days post-gathering in the per-protocol population (non-inferiority margin <0·35%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04872075., Findings: Between May 11 and 25, 2021, 18 845 individuals registered on the dedicated website, and 10 953 were randomly selected for a pre-enrolment on-site visit. Among 6968 who kept the appointment and were screened, 6678 participants were randomly assigned (4451 were assigned to be attendees and 2227 to be non-attendees; median age 28 years; 59% women); 88% (3917) of attendees and 87% (1947) of non-attendees complied with follow-up requirements. The day 7 RT-PCR was positive for eight of the 3917 attendees (observed incidence, 0·20%; 95% CI 0·09-0·40) and three of the 1947 non-attendees (0·15%; 0·03-0·45; absolute difference, 95% CI -0·26% to 0·28%), findings that met the non-inferiority criterion for the primary endpoint., Interpretation: Participation in a large, indoor, live gathering without physical distancing was not associated with increased SARS-CoV-2-transmission risk, provided a comprehensive preventive intervention was implemented., Funding: French Ministry of Health., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97%, respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference tests, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in crude saliva samples with an RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number: NCT04578509., (© 2021. The Author(s).)