Search

Objectives To evaluate the performance of nasal mid-turbinate self-testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) for persons with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the community. Self-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RDT, provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. Methods Participants visiting a municipal SARS-CoV-2 testing centre, received self-testing kits containing either the BD Veritor System (BD-RDT) or Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test (Roche-RDT). Oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the participants for quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) testing. As a proxy for contagiousness, viral culture was performed on a selection of qRT-PCR positive samples to determine the Ct-value at which the chance of a positive culture dropped below 0.5 (Ct-value cut-off). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing were compared to qRT-PCR with a Ct-value below the Ct value cut-off. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-test result were determined. Results A total of 3201 participants were included (BD-RDT n = 1595; Roche-RDT n = 1606). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared with the qRT-PCR results with a Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off were 78.4% (95% CI 73.2%–83.5%) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1%–99.7%), respectively. A higher age was independently associated with a false-negative self-testing result with an odds ratio of 1.024 (95% CI 1.003–1.044). Conclusions Self-testing using currently available RDT has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness.

Background An increase in infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB), related to an increasing number of patients with ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora, necessitates the exploration of alternatives for the traditionally used empirical prophylaxis of ciprofloxacin. We compared infectious complication rates after transrectal PB using empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis versus culture-based prophylaxis. Methods In this nonblinded, randomized trial, between 4 April 2018 and 30 July 2021, we enrolled 1538 patients from 11 Dutch hospitals undergoing transrectal PB. After rectal swab collection, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive empirical prophylaxis with oral ciprofloxacin (control group [CG]) or culture-based prophylaxis (intervention group [IG]). Primary outcome was any infectious complication within 7 days after biopsy. Secondary outcomes were infectious complications within 30 days, and bacteremia and bacteriuria within 7 and 30 days postbiopsy. For primary outcome analysis, the χ2 test stratified for hospitals was used. Trial registration number: NCT03228108. Results Data from 1288 patients (83.7%) were available for analysis (CG, 652; IG, 636). Infection rates within 7 days postbiopsy were 4.3% (n = 28) (CG) and 2.5% (n = 16) (IG) (P value = .08; reduction: −1.8%; 95% confidence interval, −.004 to .040). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.2% (n = 1288). In the CG, the presence of ciprofloxacin-resistant rectal flora resulted in a 6.2-fold higher risk of early postbiopsy infection. Conclusions Our study supports the use of culture-based prophylaxis to reduce infectious complications after transrectal PB. Despite adequate prophylaxis, postbiopsy infections can still occur. Therefore, culture-based prophylaxis must be weighed against other strategies that could reduce postbiopsy infections. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03228108.

ObjectiveTo assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period.DesignProspective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study.SettingThree public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022.Participants6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing.InterventionsParticipants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers).Main outcome measuresThe main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard.ResultsDuring phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ2test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively).ConclusionsSensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.

Background We aimed to determine the noninferiority of fosfomycin compared to ciprofloxacin as an oral step-down treatment for Escherichia coli febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs) in women. Methods This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 15 Dutch hospitals. Adult women who were receiving 2–5 days of empirical intravenous antimicrobials for E. coli fUTI were assigned to step-down treatment with once-daily 3g fosfomycin or twice-daily 0.5g ciprofloxacin for 10 days of total antibiotic treatment. For the primary end point, clinical cure at days 6–10 post-end of treatment (PET), a noninferiority margin of 10% was chosen. The trial was registered on Trialregister.nl (NTR6449). Results After enrollment of 97 patients between 2017 and 2020, the trial ended prematurely because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The primary end point was met in 36 of 48 patients (75.0%) assigned to fosfomycin and 30 of 46 patients (65.2%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (risk difference [RD], 9.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.8% to 28.0%). In patients assigned to fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin, microbiological cure at days 6–10 PET occurred in 29 of 37 (78.4%) and 33 of 35 (94.3%; RD, –16.2%; 95% CI: –32.7 to –0.0%). Any gastrointestinal adverse event was reported in 25 of 48 (52.1%) and 14 of 46 (30.4%) patients (RD, 20.8%; 95% CI: 1.6% to 40.0%), respectively. Conclusions Fosfomycin is noninferior to ciprofloxacin as oral step-down treatment for fUTI caused by E. coli in women. Fosfomycin use is associated with more gastrointestinal events. Clinical Trial Registration Trial NL6275 (NTR6449)., Fosfomycin is noninferior to ciprofloxacin regarding clinical cure as a targeted oral step-down treatment for Escherichia colifebrile urinary tract infections in women. Its use could prevent extended hospitalization in cases of resistance, intolerance, or allergies to existing step-down antibiotics.

ObjectivesTo assess the performances of three commonly used rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period.DesignCross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study.SettingThree public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands.Participants3,600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test.InterventionsParticipants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex (Flowflex), MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers Clinitest (Clinitest)) to perform unsupervised at home within three hours and blinded to the RT-PCR result.Main Outcome(s) and Measures(s)Diagnostic accuracies (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) of each self-test compared to RT-PCR.ResultsOverall sensitivities of the three self-tests were 27.5% (95% CI: 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for Clinitest. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (95% CI: 37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively. No consistent differences were found in sensitivities by COVID-19 vaccination status, having had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, gender or age across the three self-tests. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses.ConclusionsThe sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period, were very low. Our findings indicate that Ag-RDT self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect the minority of infections at that point in time and may not be sufficient to prevent the spreading of the virus to other (vulnerable) persons. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield of the self-tests, and individuals should certainly be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.Summary boxWhat is already known on this topicIf sufficiently reliable, SARS-CoV-2 self-testing by asymptomatic persons prior to admission in places where groups gather could have a huge public health impact by lowering the reproduction number or keep it below one for longer periods.Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) when used as self-tests by asymptomatic individuals perform suboptimal, but sample sizes of the previous studies were too small to draw robust conclusions, and also empirical data on the accuracy of Ag-RDT self-tests in asymptomatic individuals during the Omicron period are scarce.What this study addsCompared to RT-PCR testing, overall sensitivities of three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs when used as self-tests by asymptomatic individuals (primary analysis population of non-confirmatory testers; n= 3600, 87% of full analysis population) in the Omicron period, were very low: 27.5% (95% CI: 21.3-34.3%) for the Acon Flowflex test, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for the MP Biomedicals test, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for the Siemens Healthineers Clinitest Ag-RDT, which increased to 48.3% (95% CI: 37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively, when applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL).Our findings indicate that Ag-RDT self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect the minority of infections at that point in time and may not be sufficient to prevent the spreading of the virus to other (vulnerable) persons. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield of the self-tests, and individuals should certainly be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.

Objectives: To assess the performances of three commonly used antigen rapid diagnostic tests used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in the Omicron period in three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands, including 3600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex [Flowflex], MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST [CLINITEST]) to perform unsupervised at home. Diagnostic accuracies of each self-test were calculated. Results: Overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI, 21.3–34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9–29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1–33.1%) for CLINITEST. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (37.6–59.2%), 37.8% (22.5–55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5–51.2%), respectively. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Discussion: The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period were very low. Antigen rapid diagnostic test self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect a minority of infections at that point in time. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield, and individuals should be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.

BackgroundPerformances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) with nasal self-sampling, and oropharyngeal plus nasal (OP-N) self-sampling, in the Omicron period are unknown.MethodsProspective diagnostic accuracy study among 6,497 symptomatic individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three test-sites. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one Ag-RDT to perform unsupervised with either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of Omicron, and after Omicron share was >90%, phase-1) or with OP-N self-sampling (in a subsequent phase-2; Omicron share >99%). The evaluated tests were Acon Flowflex (Flowflex; phase-1 only), MP Biomedicals (MPBio), and Siemens-Healthineers Clinitest (Clinitest).FindingsDuring phase-1, 45% of Flowflex, 29% of MPBio, and 35% of Clinitest participants were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% CI: 74.7-82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1-74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6-74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased by 6.1 (p=0.16 by Chi-square test), 7.0 (p=0.60), and 12.8 (p=0.025) percentage points, respectively, when transitioning from 29% to >95% Omicron. During phase-2, 53% of MPBio, and 44% of Clinitest participants were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with OP-N self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8%-86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9%-81.2%) for Clinitest. Comparing OP-N to nasal sampling, sensitivities were slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively), and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively).InterpretatioSensitivities of three Ag-RDTs with nasal self-sampling decreased during Omicron emergence but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling improved sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest.FundingDutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport.Research into contextEvidence before this studySARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) require no or minimal equipment, provide a result within 15-30 minutes, and can be used in a range of settings including for self-testing at home. Self-testing may potentially lower the threshold to testing and allows individuals to obtain a test result quickly and at their own convenience, which could support the early detection of infectious cases and reduce community transmission. Real world evidence on the performance of unsupervised nasal and oropharyngeal plus nasal (OP-N) self-sampling in the Omicron variant period is needed to accurately inform end-users and policymakers. Therefore, we conducted a large prospective diagnostic accuracy study of three commercially available Ag-RDTs with self-sampling (the Acon Flowflex test, the MP Biomedicals test, and the Siemens-Healthineers Clinitest) during and after the emergence of Omicron using RT-PCR as the reference standard. Our aims were to evaluate whether the accuracies of Ag-RDTs with nasal self-sampling changed over time with the emergence of Omicron; and to determine whether addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling with the same swab yielded higher diagnostic accuracies.What this study addsThe large comprehensive study was conducted in almost 6,500 participants with symptoms when presenting for routine SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service COVID-19 test-sites in the Netherlands. During the study, conducted between 21 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, the percentage of the Omicron variant in samples from the national SARS-CoV-2 pathogen surveillance increased from 29% in the first week to 99% in the last week of the study. The period during which the Omicron variant was dominant was divided into a nasal sampling phase (phase-1; Omicron present in >90% of surveillance samples) and an OP-N sampling phase (phase-2; Omicron share was >99%). In phase-1, 45% of Flowflex, 29% of MPBio, and 35% of Clinitest participants visited the test-site because of a positive self-test (confirmatory testers). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% CI: 74.7-82.8%) for the Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1-74.4%) for the MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6-74.5%) for the Clinitest Ag-RDT. Sensitivities were 94%, 84%, and 86%, respectively, for confirmatory testers, and 52%, 52%, and 50%, respectively, for those who had other reasons for getting tested. Sensitivities were 87.0% (79.7-92.4%), 83.1% (72.9-90.7%), and 80.0% (51.9-95.7%), respectively, in the first week, and decreased by 6.1 (p=0.16 by Chi-square test), 7.0 (p=0.60), and 12.8 (p=0.025) percentage points in the final week of the study. In Phase-2, 53% of MPBio and 44% of Clinitest participants were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with OP-N self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8%-86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9%-81.2%) for Clinitest. When comparing OP-N to nasal sampling, sensitivities were slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively), and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%).Implications of all the available evidenceThe sensitivities of three commercially available Ag-RDTs performed with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of Omicron, but this trend was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling improved the sensitivity of the MPBio and Clinitest, most notably in individuals who visited the test-site for other reasons than to confirm a positive self-test. Based on these findings, the manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal sampling, and other manufacturers may consider evaluating this as well.

Background: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have proven to be at risk for developing invasive fungal infections. However, the incidence and impact of possible/probable COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) in severe COVID-19 patients varies between cohorts. We aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcome of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in a regional cohort of COVID-19 intensive care patients. Methods: We performed a regional, multicentre, retrospective cohort study in the intensive care units (ICUs) in North Brabant, The Netherlands. We included adult patients with rt-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Demographics, clinical course, biomarker value, and treatment outcomes were compared between the groups with possible/probable CAPA from the main study centre and the regional centres, and without signs of CAPA from the main study centre as controls. The primary aim was to assess the regional impact of possible/probable CAPA in COVID-19 ICU patients, measured as all-cause mortality at 30 days after ICU admission. Secondary outcomes were risk factors for developing CAPA, based on underlying host factors and to identify the value of the mycological arguments for the diagnosing of CAPA. Results: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we included 123 patients with severe COVID-19: 29 patients (30.9%) in the main ICU with possible/probable CAPA, and 65 (69.1%) with no signs of CAPA; 29 patients in the regional ICUs with signs of CAPA. Patients’ characteristics and risk factors did not differ for CAPA and non-CAPA patients. Patients with COPD and/or chronic steroid medication developed CAPA more frequently, although this was not statistically significant. CAPA patients were admitted to the ICU earlier, had lower PF-ratios, and more often required renal replacement therapy. All-cause 30-day mortality was significantly higher in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with possible/probable CAPA 39.7% (23/58) compared to patients without evidence for CAPA 16.9% (11/65) (OR 3.2 [95% CI 1.4–7.4] p = 0.005). Conclusion: The high incidence of possible and probable CAPA in critically ill COVID-19 patients is alarming. The increase in 30-day mortality in CAPA highlights the need for active surveillance and management strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 self-tests may lower the threshold of testing and produce a result quickly. This could support the early detection of infectious cases and reduce further community transmission. However, the diagnostic accuracy of (unsupervised) self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We therefore conducted a large-scale head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, each compared to a molecular reference test, in the general population in the Netherlands.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study we consecutively included individuals aged 16 years and older presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service test sites irrespective of their indication for testing, vaccination status, and symptomatology. Participants were sampled for molecular testing at the test site and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform at home within a few hours without knowledge of their molecular test result. Information on presence and type of symptoms, user experiences, and results of both self-tests were collected via an online questionnaire. For each self-test, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were determined with molecular testing as reference standard.FindingsThe SARS-CoV-2 molecular reference test positivity rate was 6.5% in the 2,819 participants. Overall sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals were 46.7% (85/182; 39.3%-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT, and 68.9% (124/180; 61.6%-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, sensitivities increased to 54.9% (78/142; 46.4%-63.3%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 83.9% (120/143; 76.9%-89.5%) for the nasal Ag-RDT.For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% [71.1%-84.8%] and 22.6% [9.6%-41.1%] in those with and without symptoms at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (113/125; 83.8%-94.9%) and 38.9% (7/18; 17.3%-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior confirmed SARS-CoV-2, sensitivities were 36.8% [19/372; 16.3%-61.6%] and 72.7% [161/2437; 65.1%-79.4%] for the nasal Ag-RDT, which increased to 100% (7/7; 59.0%-100%) and 83.1% (113/126; 75.7%-89.0%) after applying the viral load cut-off.The diagnostic accuracy of the nasal Ag-RDT did not differ by COVID-19 vaccination status, sex, and age. Specificities were >99%, positive predictive values >70% and negative predictive values >95%, for the saliva Ag-RDT, and >99%, >90%, and >95% for the nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses.Interpreting the results was considered (very) easy for both self-tests.InterpretationThe Hangzhou AllTest self-performed saliva Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 infection detection overall nor in the studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor self-performed nasal Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall accuracy in individuals with symptoms was comparable to that found in previous studies with professional sampling for this Ag-RDT. The extremely low sensitivity of the nasal Ag-RDT in asymptomatic individuals and in individuals who had had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important finding and warrants further investigation.FundingDutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport.

ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of three rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population.DesignCross-sectional study with follow-up using pseudonymised record linkage.SettingThree Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites.ParticipantsConsecutively included individuals aged 16 years and older presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing.Main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of BD-VeritortmSystem (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), and SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics), applying routinely used sampling methods (combined oropharyngeal and nasal [OP-N] or nasopharyngeal [NP] swab), with molecular testing as reference standard. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N sampling was also assessed. A viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) served as a proxy of infectiousness.ResultsSARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals were 188/1441 (13.0%) and 129/188 (68.6% [61.5%-75.2%]) for BD-Veritor, 173/2056 (8.4%) and 119/173 (68.8% [61.3%-75.6%]) for PanBio, and 215/1769 (12.2%) and 160/215 (74.4% [68.0%-80.1%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 164/1689 (9.7%) and 123/164 (75.0% [67.7%-81.4%]) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72.2%-83.4% and 54.0%-55.9%, respectively. With a viral load cut-off, sensitivities were 125/146 (85.6% [78.9%-90.9%]) for BD-Veritor, 108/121 (89.3% [82.3%-94.2%]) for PanBio, 160/182 (87.9% [82.3%-92.3%]) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling, and 118/141 (83.7% [76.5%-89.4%]) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values >95%, for all tests in most analyses. 61.3% of false negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median of 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90.3% tested positive.ConclusionsThe overall sensitivities of the three Ag-RDTs were 68.6%-75.0%, increasing to at least 85.6% after the viral load cut-off was applied. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and NP sampling was comparable. Over 55% of false negative Ag-RDT participants tested positive during follow-up.

Objective To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure. Design Prospective cross sectional study. Setting Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands. Participants 4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness. Results Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses. Conclusions The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness.

BackgroundPre-/asymptomatic close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals were tested at day 5 after contact by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Diagnostic accuracy of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in pre-/asymptomatic close contacts was up till now unknown.MethodsWe performed a prospective cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. Close contacts (e.g. selected via the test-and-trace program or contact tracing app) aged ≥16 years and asymptomatic when requesting a test, were included consecutively and tested at day 5 at four Dutch public health service test sites. We evaluated two Ag-RDTs (BD Veritor™ System Ag-RDT (BD), and Roche/SD Biosensor Ag-RDT (SD-B)) with RT-PCR as the reference standard. Virus culture was performed in RT-PCR positive individuals to determine the viral load cut-off above which 95% was culture positive, as a proxy of infectiousness.ResultsOf 2,678 BD-tested individuals, 233 (8.7%) were RT-PCR positive and BD detected 149 (sensitivity 63.9%; 95% confidence interval 57.4%-70.1%). Out of 1,596 SD-B-tested individuals, 132 (8.3%) were RT-PCR positive and SD-B detected 83 (sensitivity 62.9%; 54.0%-71.1%). When applying an infectiousness viral load cut-off ≥ 5.2 log10 gene copies/mL, the sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2%-94.4%) for BD, 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for SD-B overall, and 88.1% (80.5%-93.5%) for BD, 85.1% (74.3%-92.6%) for SD-B for those still asymptomatic at the actual time of sampling. Specificity was >99% for both Ag-RDTs in all analyses.ConclusionsThe sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 of both Ag-RDTs in pre-/asymptomatic close contacts is over 60%, increasing to over 85% after applying an infectiousness viral load cut-off.Trial registration numberNot applicable. A study protocol is available upon request.

IntroductionSelf-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RDT), provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of self-testing using RDT without assistance.MethodsParticipants visiting a municipal SARS-CoV-2 testing centre, received self-testing kits containing either the BD Veritor System (BD RDT) or Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test (Roche RDT). Oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the participants for qRT-PCR testing. As a proxy for contagiousness, viral culture was performed on a selection of qRT-PCR positive samples to determine the Ct-value at which the chance of a positive culture was dropping below 0.5 (Ct-value cut-off). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing were compared to qRT-PCR with a Ct-value below the Ct value cut-off. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-test result were determined.ResultsA total of 3,215 participants were included (BD RDT n=1604; Roche RDT n=1611). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared to the qRT-PCR results with Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off was 78.0% (95% CI:72.5-82.8) and 99.4% (95%CI: 99.0-99.6) respectively. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-testing results were: higher age, low viral load and finding self-testing difficult.DiscussionSelf-testing using currently available RDT’s has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness. The performance of two tests were comparable. This application has the potential for frequent and extensive testing which may be an aid to lift restrictions to society while controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Contains fulltext : 245492.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) COVID-19 has made a global impact since early 2020, requiring characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including transmission risk. The COco-study aims to evaluate the risk for COVID-19 infections in two non-medical contact-intensive professions. COco is a prospective cohort study evaluating SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in hairdressers and hospitality personnel in the province of North-Brabant in the Netherlands, using a total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Baseline data from June/July 2020 were analyzed. Participants filled out a questionnaire, providing information on demographics, health, work situation, and risk factors for COVID-19. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using logistic regression. In June/July 2020, 497 participants were enrolled: 236 hairdressers, 259 hospitality employees, and two participants worked in both industries. Hospitality staff was more frequently seropositive than hairdressers (14.2% versus 8.0%, respectively; OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.4). Furthermore, a high education level (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.7-5.6) and increased alcohol use (OR, 7 glasses per week increment: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5) were associated with seropositivity. Of the 56 seropositive participants, 18 (32%) had not experienced any COVID-19 symptoms. The symptoms anosmia/ageusia differed most evidently between seropositive and seronegative participants (53.6% versus 5.7%, respectively; P

Background: 10 days after the first reported case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the Netherlands (on Feb 27, 2020), 55 (4%) of 1497 health-care workers in nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We aimed to gain insight in possible sources of infection in health-care workers. Methods: We did a cross-sectional study at three of the nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands. We screened health-care workers at the participating hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on clinical symptoms (fever or mild respiratory symptoms) in the 10 days before screening. We obtained epidemiological data through structured interviews with health-care workers and combined this information with data from whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples taken from health-care workers and patients. We did an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and patients. Findings: Between March 2 and March 12, 2020, 1796 (15%) of 12 022 health-care workers were screened, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete and near-complete genome sequences from 50 health-care workers and ten patients. Most sequences were grouped in three clusters, with two clusters showing local circulation within the region. The noted patterns were consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community-acquired infections and local amplification in the community. Interpretation: Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, our data do not support widespread nosocomial transmission as the source of infection in patients or health-care workers. Funding: EU Horizon 2020 (RECoVer, VEO, and the European Joint Programme One Health METASTAVA), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

ObjectivesThis study was primarily conducted to evaluate clinical sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test ‘BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2’ (VRD) compared to real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Furthermore, the VRD sensitivity for different Ct-value groups (Ct DesignProspective performance evaluation study.SettingMunicipal Health Service (GGD) COVID-19 test centres in West-Brabant, the NetherlandsParticipantsIn order to evaluate clinical specificity, 352 symptomatic adults (≥18 years) who presented at a participating GGD test centre for a COVID-19 test between September 28 and October 7 2020 were included. In order to evaluate clinical sensitivity, 123 symptomatic adults (≥18 years) who were tested positive with qRT-PCR in a participating GGD test centre between September 26 and October 6 were included.ResultsAn overall clinical specificity of 100% (95%CI: 98.9%-100%) and sensitivity of 80.7% (95% CI: 73,2%-86,9%) was found for the VRD compared to qRT-PCR. Sensitivity was the highest for low Ct-value categories and for specimen obtained within the first days after disease onset. For specimen obtained within 7 days after onset of symptoms, the overall sensitivity was 91.0% (95% CI: 82,4%-96,3%) and 98,6% (95% CI: 92,3%-100%) for samples with qRT-PCR Ct-value beneath 30.ConclusionThe VRD is a promising diagnostic test for COVID-19 community screening for symptomatic individuals within 7 days after symptom onset in function of disease control. The clinical sensitivity was highest when viral load was high, which correlated with the duration of symptoms. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position of the test within the current testing landscape is needed.

BackgroundIn the beginning of March 2020, the Amphia hospital in Breda was one of the first hospitals in the Netherlands that received patients with COVID-19. Within ten days after the first COVID-19 positive patient, the number of (suspected) COVID-19 cases among patients and employees increased rapidly and thus the number of requests for SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests. From mid-March, we changed to a non-test-based strategy for employees whereby a work ban was implemented, based on the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms without the use of a diagnostic test. The objective of our study was to evaluate the safety of the non-test-based strategy. MethodsThe study period was March 1 to May 22, 2020. For all patients in whom the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was positive > 2 days after admission, the medical record was reviewed by infection control staff for (respiratory) symptoms, laboratory results and lung CT/X-ray images to assess possible hospital-onset COVID-19. For employees, the number of sick reports per week were extracted from the department of Human Resources. Reason for reporting sick was not registered. ResultsTen of the 374 patients (2.7%) developed symptoms suspected for COVID-19 ≥3 days after admission and were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, of which nosocomial transmission is the most likely cause in three patients. In the period in which the employees were still actively tested for SARS-CoV-2, there was a temporary increase in the number of sick reports (week 10-11). After this two-week period, the number of sick reports decreased rapidly. The total number of sick reports in the first 20 weeks of 2020 is comparable or lower than the total number of sick reports in the same period in previous years.ConclusionWith this non-test-based strategy for employees combined with a restriction of visitors to the patients and strict isolation of COVID-19 (suspected) patients, there was no excessive absenteeism of work due to illness and there were only few patients with indications of COVID-19 acquisition in the hospital.

Question What was the prevalence and clinical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 among health care workers with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms in 2 Dutch hospitals within 2 weeks after the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 was detected in the Netherlands? Findings In this cross-sectional study that included 1353 health care workers with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms, 6% were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Most health care workers with coronavirus disease 2019 experienced mild disease, and only 53% reported fever. Meaning The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected coronavirus disease 2019 should be used less stringently.Importance On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. Objective To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Results Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years]; 15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently.This cross-sectional study examines the prevalence and clinical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 among health care workers in the Netherlands with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms.

BackgroundOn February 27, 2020, the first patient with COVID-19 was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, nine healthcare workers (HCWs) were diagnosed with COVID-19 in two Dutch teaching hospitals, eight of whom had no history of travel to China or Northern-Italy. A low-threshold screening regimen was implemented to determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs in these two hospitals.MethodsHCWs who suffered from fever or respiratory symptoms were voluntarily tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19.FindingsThirteen-hundred fifty-three (14%) of 9,705 HCWs employed were tested, 86 (6%) of whom were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most HCWs suffered from relatively mild disease and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty (93%) HCWs met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. None of the HCWs identified through the screening reported a travel history to China or Northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported to have been exposed to an inpatient known with COVID-19 prior to the onset of symptoms.InterpretationWithin two weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with SARS-CoV-2, probably caused by acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, asks for less stringent use of the currently recommended case-definition for suspected COVID-19.RESEARCH IN PERSPECTIVEEvidence before this studyThis study was conducted in response to the global spread of SARS-CoV-2, and the detection of eight healthcare workers (HCWs) in two Dutch teaching hospitals within two weeks after the first patient with COVID-19 was detected in the Netherlands who had no history of travel to China or Northern-Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring.Added value of this studyTo the best of our knowledge, this report is the first to describe the prevalence, the clinical presentation and early outcomes of COVID-19 in HCWs, which may be helpful for others seeking to identify HCWs suspected for COVID-19 in an outbreak situation.Implications of all the available evidenceWe describe that within two weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with fever or (mild) respiratory symptoms were infected with SARS-CoV-2, probably caused by acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, asks for less stringent use of the currently recommended case-definition for suspected COVID-19.

Item does not contain fulltext To rapidly assess possible community transmission in Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands, healthcare workers (HCW) with mild respiratory complaints and without epidemiological link (contact with confirmed case or visited areas with active circulation) were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Within 2 days, 1,097 HCW in nine hospitals were tested; 45 (4.1%) were positive. Of six hospitals with positive HCW, two accounted for 38 positive HCW. The results informed local and national risk management.

Background: Melioidosis, caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, is an opportunistic infection across the tropics. Here, we provide a systematic overview of imported human cases in a non-endemic country over a 25-year period. Methods: All 55 Dutch microbiology laboratories were contacted in order to identify all B. pseudomallei positive cultures from 1990 to 2018. A response rate of 100% was achieved. Additionally, a systematic literature search was performed, medical-charts reviewed, and tissue/autopsy specimens were re-assessed. Results: Thirty-three travelers with melioidosis were identified: 70% male with a median-age of 54 years. Risk factors were present in most patients (n = 23, 70%), most notably diabetes (n = 8, 24%) and cystic fibrosis (n = 3, 9%). Countries of acquisition included Thailand, Brazil, Indonesia, Panama, and The Gambia. Disease manifestations included pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscesses, otitis externa, genitourinary, skin-, CNS-, and thyroid gland infections. Twelve (36%) patients developed sepsis and/or septic shock. Repeat episodes of active infection were observed in five (15%) and mortality in four (12%) patients. Post-mortem analysis showed extensive metastatic (micro)abscesses amongst other sites in the adrenal gland and bone marrow. Conclusions: The number of imported melioidosis is likely to increase, given rising numbers of (immunocompromised) travelers, and increased vigilance of the condition. This first systematic retrospective surveillance study in a non-endemic melioidosis country shows that imported cases can serve as sentinels to provide information about disease activity in areas visited and inform pre-travel advice and post-travel clinical management.

Objectives Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is complicated and prone to error. Before using fosfomycin widely in patients with serious infections, acquisition of WT distribution data and reliable susceptibility testing methods are crucial. In this study, the performance of five methods for fosfomycin testing in the routine laboratory against the reference method was evaluated. Methods Ten laboratories collected up to 100 ESBL-producing isolates each (80 Escherichia coli and 20 Klebsiella pneumoniae). Isolates were tested using Etest, MIC test strip (MTS), Vitek2, Phoenix and disc diffusion. Agar dilution was performed as the reference method in a central laboratory. Epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs) were determined for each species and susceptibility and error rates were calculated. Results In total, 775 E. coli and 201 K. pneumoniae isolates were tested by agar dilution. The ECOFF was 2 mg/L for E. coli and 64 mg/L for K. pneumoniae. Susceptibility rates based on the EUCAST breakpoint of ≤32 mg/L were 95.9% for E. coli and 87.6% for K. pneumoniae. Despite high categorical agreement rates for all methods, notably in E. coli, none of the alternative antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods performed satisfactorily. Due to poor detection of resistant isolates, very high error rates of 23.3% (Etest), 18.5% (MTS), 18.8% (Vitek2), 12.5% (Phoenix) and 12.9% (disc diffusion) for E. coli and 22.7% (Etest and MTS), 16.0% (Vitek2) and 12% (Phoenix) for K. pneumoniae were found. None of the methods adequately differentiated between WT and non-WT populations. Conclusions Overall, it was concluded that none of the test methods is suitable as an alternative to agar dilution in the routine laboratory.

Background SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) is well suited for the diagnosis of clinically ill patients requiring treatment. Application for community testing of symptomatic individuals for disease control purposes however raises challenges. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests might offer an alternative, but quality evidence on their performance is limited. Methods We conducted an evaluation of the test accuracy of the ‘BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2’ (VRD) compared to qRT-PCR on combined nose/throat swabs obtained from symptomatic individuals at Municipal Health Service (MHS) COVID-19 test centers in the Netherlands. In part one of the study, with the primary objective to evaluate test sensitivity and specificity, all adults presenting at one MHS test center were eligible for inclusion. In part two, with the objective to evaluate test sensitivity stratified by Ct (cycle threshold)-value and time since symptom onset, adults who had a positive qRT-PCR obtained at a MHS test center were eligible. Findings In part one (n = 352) SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8%, overall specificity 100% (95%CI: 98·9%-100%) and sensitivity 94·1% (95%CI: 71·1%-100%). In part two (n = 123) the sensitivity was 78·9% (95%CI: 70·6%-85·7%) overall, 89·4% (95% CI: 79·4%-95·6%) for specimen obtained within seven days after symptom onset and 93% (95% CI: 86%-97.1%) for specimen with a Ct-value below 30. Interpretation The VRD is a promising diagnostic for COVID-19 testing of symptomatic community-dwelling individuals within seven days after symptom onset in context of disease control. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position within the testing landscape is needed.

The combination disk diffusion extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) confirmation test (CDT) is used for the confirmation of ESBL production in Enterobacteriaceae and usually takes 16–20 h to results. In this study, we searched for the shortest possible incubation time without a reduction in reliability. A total of 125 ESBL screening-positive isolates were subjected to CDT and were molecularly characterised by microarray. Inhibition zones were read every hour over 6–18 h of incubation. Concordance between earlier and 18-h readings was calculated for each hour. Results were validated on 224 isolates during routine clinical practice. For the initial 125 isolates, concordance (Cohen's κ) between the 6-h and 18-h readings was 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–0.96; P 0.001]. The earliest time point for full concordance with the 18-h reading was 10 h. Validation of the 10-h reading for 224 clinical isolates resulted in a concordance of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98–1.0) between the 10-h and 18-h readings. Overall concordance on all 349 isolates was 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–1.0). Reading after 10 h of incubation has an excellent correlation with results after 18 h of incubation. This can significantly reduce the turnaround time for ESBL detection in laboratories with long opening hours or providing a 24/7 service. Consequently, there is a potential for implementing infection control measures up to 8 h earlier.

The standard incubation time for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) by disk diffusion is primarily based on laboratory working hours rather than growth and kill characteristics of bacteria. Faster AST results could result in better patient outcomes and reduced costs by initiating earlier appropriate therapy. The earliest possible reading moment for disk diffusion using established disk zone diameter breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae was determined with a special focus on the accuracy of the results. A total of 88 Enterobacteriaceae challenge isolates, including isolates with specific resistance mechanisms such as extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL), were subjected to disk diffusion with 15 antibiotics. Hourly images were automatically produced by an incubator/camera combination from 1 h to 20 h. Disk zones were plotted over time for all combinations. Essential and categorical agreement rates using the final reading after 20 h of incubation as a reference were calculated for every hour. In total, 1320 antibiotic-micro-organism combinations were tested. Clear growth with readable inhibition zones was visible after 6 h of incubation for the majority (95.8%) of plates and after 7 h for all incubated plates. However, zone sizes changed significantly after those time points for a number of strains. After 10 h of incubation, minor, major and very major error rates were 1.6% (n = 21), 0.2% (n = 1) and 0.7% (n = 4), respectively. The results of this study clearly indicate that early reading of inhibition zones to 10 h after incubation is feasible and accurate and thus may save significantly on turnaround time.

This paper focuses on performance changes stemming from a series of lean interventions in a medical laboratory. This research is one of the first to link a series of lean interventions and performance over time. In a mixed-method case study, six years of patient-related throughput data, retrieved from a laboratory computer database, are analysed. Three distinct periods with significant differences in throughput time performance can be distinguished. Semi-structured interviews were held to investigate the lean interventions preceding the performance changes. Given the long-term nature of the study, the event history calendar method was applied to enhance the respondents' recall and reliability. A single lean intervention, among the hundreds that took place, was supposed to cause the main reduction in throughput times. It concentrated on improving process flow through the removal of batching, a source of artificial variability. A later major intervention, the introduction of flow-focused machinery, had mixed effects and initial performance gains were not sustained. The results show that ongoing series of interventions do not always lead to ongoing performance improvements in terms of throughput times but support theories emphasising the importance of variability reduction.

OBJECTIVE To determine the size and causative pathogen of the outbreak and to identify risk factors for developing gastroenteritis among participants of the Survivalrun in Udenhout in September 2016. Design Retrospective cohort study. METHODS We sent an invitation to go to an online questionnaire to participants and volunteers of the Survivalrun by email. The link to the questionnaire was also shared on the Facebook page and website of the Survivalrun. We calculated attack rates (AR) and relative risks (RR) for several exposures to identify risk factors for developing diarrhoea and/or vomiting within 3 days after the run. In addition, stool samples of six participants were tested for common gastrointestinal pathogens. RESULTS A total of 444 people completed the questionnaire. Symptoms of gastroenteritis were reported by 163 study participants (37%). Five participants reported symptoms of gastroenteritis in the week before and three participants during the Survivalrun. Multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for developing gastroenteritis: participation on the second day of the run(RR 2.4: 95% CI 1.1-5.3), ingesting water (RR 1.7: 95% CI 1.3-2.3) and ingesting mud (RR 1.3: 95% CI 1.1-1.6). Four out of six stool samples tested positive for norovirus (various types). CONCLUSION This outbreak investigation shows that pathogens, such as norovirus, can easily spread during sporting events where participants have to move through water and mud. Specific methods and knowledge of the circumstances are essential for a thorough outbreak investigation.

Despite low sensitivity, culture of periprosthetic tissue (PPT) specimens on agars and in broths has traditionally been used for the detection of causative microorganisms in patients suspected for prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the added diagnostic value of culturing PPT in blood culture bottles (BCB) over the conventional combination of standard agar and broth alone. This prospective cohort study was conducted over a 12-month period and included consecutive patients undergoing revision arthroplasty. Overall, 113 episodes from 90 subjects were studied; 45 subjects (50.0%) met the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria for PJI, of whom the majority (75.6%) had an acute infection. Sensitivity and specificity of culture were assessed using IDSA criteria for PJI as gold standard. Although the increase in sensitivity from 84.44 (CI 70.54; 93.51) to 93.33% (81.73; 98.60) was not significant, added diagnostic value of culturing PPT in BCBs was demonstrated by the significantly higher number of detected pathogens in culture sets with BCBs compared to culture without BCBs (61 pathogens in conventional set versus 89 when BCBs were included for 57 PJI episodes, P =

Background Effective mass drug administration (MDA) with anti-malarial drugs can clear the human infectious reservoir for malaria and thereby interrupt malaria transmission. The likelihood of success of MDA depends on the intensity and seasonality of malaria transmission, the efficacy of the intervention in rapidly clearing all malaria parasite stages and the degree to which symptomatic and asymptomatic parasite carriers participate in the intervention. The impact of MDA with the gametocytocidal drug combination sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) plus artesunate (AS) plus primaquine (PQ, single dose 0.75 mg/kg) on malaria transmission was determined in an area of very low and seasonal malaria transmission in northern Tanzania. Methods In a cluster-randomized trial in four villages in Lower Moshi, Tanzania, eight clusters (1,110 individuals; cluster size 47- 209) were randomized to observed treatment with SP+AS+PQ and eight clusters (2,347 individuals, cluster size 55- 737) to treatment with placebo over three days. Intervention and control clusters were 1km apart; households that were located between clusters were treated as buffer zones where all individuals received SP+AS+PQ but were not selected for the evaluation. Passive case detection was done for the entire cohort and active case detection in 149 children aged 1-10 year from the intervention arm and 143 from the control arm. Four cross-sectional surveys assessed parasite carriage by microscopy and molecular methods during a five-month follow-up period. Results The coverage rate in the intervention arm was 93.0% (1,117/1,201). Parasite prevalence by molecular detection methods was 2.2-2.7% prior to the intervention and undetectable during follow-up in both the control and intervention clusters. None of the slides collected during cross-sectional surveys had microscopically detectable parasite densities. Three clinical malaria episodes occurred in the intervention (n = 1) and control clusters (n = 2). Conclusions This study illustrates the possibility to achieve high coverage with a three-day intervention but also the difficulty in defining suitable outcome measures to evaluate interventions in areas of very low malaria transmission intensity. The decline in transmission intensity prior to the intervention made it impossible to assess the impact of MDA in the chosen study setting. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00509015