Search

Objectives: The potential benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highest when administered early after symptom onset. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of CP therapy in improving the disease course of COVID-19 among high-risk outpatients. Methods: A multicentre, double-blind randomized trial was conducted comparing 300 mL of CP with non-CP. Patients were >= 50 years, were symptomatic for 50 years was 80%. Patients had a median age of 60 years, symptoms for 5 days, and 207 of 416 patients received CP therapy. During the 28 day follow-up, 28 patients were hospitalized and two died. The OR for an improved disease severity score with CP was 0.86 (95% credible interval, 0.59-1.22). The OR was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.33-1.02) for patients with

BackgroundRapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals is crucial for taking timely measures and minimizing the risk of further SARS-CoV-2 spread. We aimed to assess the accuracy of exhaled breath analysis by electronic nose (eNose) for the discrimination between individuals with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsThis was a prospective real-world study of individuals presenting to public test facility for SARS-CoV-2 detection by molecular amplification tests (TMA or RT-PCR). After sampling of a combined throat/nasopharyngeal swab, breath profiles were obtained using a cloud-connected eNose. Data-analysis involved advanced signal processing and statistics based on independent t-tests followed by linear discriminant and ROC analysis. Data from the training set were tested in a validation, a replication and an asymptomatic set.FindingsFor the analysis 4510 individuals were available. In the training set (35 individuals with; 869 without SARS-CoV-2), the eNose sensors were combined into a composite biomarker with a ROC-AUC of 0.947 (CI:0.928-0.967). These results were confirmed in the validation set (0.957; CI:0.942-0.971, n=904) and externally validated in the replication set (0.937; CI:0.926-0.947, n=1948) and the asymptomatic set (0.909; CI:0.879-0.938, n=754). Selecting a cut-off value of 0.30 in the training set resulted in a sensitivity/specificity of 100/78, >99/84, 98/82% in the validation, replication and asymptomatic set, respectively.InterpretationeNose represents a quick and non-invasive method to reliably rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection in public health test facilities and can be used as a screening test to define who needs an additional confirmation test.FundingMinistry of Health, Welfare and SportResearch in contextEvidence before this studyElectronic nose technology is an emerging diagnostic tool for diagnosis and phenotyping of a wide variety of diseases, including inflammatory respiratory diseases, lung cancer, and infections.As of Feb 13, 2021, our search of PubMed using keywords “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” AND “eNose” OR “electronic nose” OR “exhaled breath analysis” yielded 4 articles (1-4) that have assessed test characteristics of electronic nose to diagnose COVID-19. In these small studies the obtained signals using sensor-based technologies, two-dimensional gas chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry, or proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry, provided adequate discrimination between patients with and without COVID-19.Added value of this studyWe prospectively studied the accuracy of exhaled breath analysis by electronic nose (eNose) to diagnose or rule out a SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with and without symptoms presenting to a public test facility. In the training set with 904 individuals, the eNose sensors were combined into a composite biomarker with a ROC-AUC of 0.948. In three independent validation cohorts of 3606 individuals in total, eNose was able to reliably rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection in 70-75% of individuals, with a sensitivity ranging between 98-100%, and a specificity between 78-84%. No association was found between cycle thresholds values, as semi-quantitative measure of viral load, and eNose variables.Implications of all the available evidenceThe available findings, including those from our study, support the use of eNose technology to distinguish between individuals with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection with high accuracy. Exhaled breath analysis by eNose represents a quick and non-invasive method to reliably rule out a SARS-CoV-2 infection in public health test facilities. The results can be made available within seconds and can therefore be used as screening instrument. The eNose can reliably rule out a SARS-CoV-2 infection, eliminating the need for additional time-consuming, stressful, and expensive diagnostic tests in the majority of individuals.

Electrospray ionization (ESI) and other ambient ionization techniques have allowed a successful interface between liquid chromatography (LC) and mass spectrometry (MS). The coupling of these two high-resolution techniques has fostered the use of analytical science in various fields, including, but not limited to, the clinical, pharmaceutical, and forensic fields, enabling the analysis, identification, and characterization of thousands of molecular components in a large diversity of complex mixtures. For many years, reversed-phase LC has remained the most commonly adopted chromatographic mode, due to its rather straightforward applicability to the analysis of a wide variety of compounds (from small to large molecules), as well as its direct compatibility with ESI-MS. However, reversed-phase LC–MS has shown relevant limitations in a number of analytical applications. This encouraged the development of alternative MS-compatible chromatographic techniques, including hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC), supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC), size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), ion-exchange chromatography (IEC), and hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC), which provide analyte separation in the liquid phase based on different retention mechanisms compared with reversed-phase LC. Here, we present these alternative chromatographic approaches, highlighting the recent relevant applications in various fields, and discussing their potential in future of analytical science investigations.

Between September 2017 and February 2018, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses (mainly B/Yamagata, not included in 2017/18 trivalent vaccines) co-circulated in Europe. Interim results from five European studies indicate that, in all age groups, 2017/18 influenza vaccine effectiveness was 25 to 52% against any influenza, 55 to 68% against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, -42 to 7% against influenza A(H3N2) and 36 to 54% against influenza B. 2017/18 influenza vaccine should be promoted where influenza still circulates. Funding: The five studies have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446 to conduct the study in individuals aged 65 years or more. ECDC has contributed to fund some study sites of the EU-PC study under the Framework contract No ECDC/2014/026 for the individuals aged less than 65 years. All study teams are very grateful to all patients, general practitioners, paediatricians, hospital teams, laboratory teams, regional epidemiologists who have contributed to the studies. We acknowledge the authors, originating and submitting laboratories of the sequences from GISAID’s EpiFlu Database used for this study. All submitters of data may be contacted directly via the GISAID website www.gisaid.org Sí