Search

• Rhinovirus/Enterovirus were predominant respiratory viruses during COVID-19 pandemic. • Virus prevalence was higher in non-COVID patients than in those who were COVID-coinfected. • For some viruses, prevalence increased in the second half when restrictions eased. • Non-SARS-CoV-2 prevalence decreased in many studies compared with pre-pandemic times. • No age-specific distribution of the viruses could be identified except for human metapneumovirus. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts have been made to contain the spread of the virus. However, the epidemiological burden of other respiratory viruses during the pandemic is unclear. We aim to address the epidemiology of respiratory viruses on adults/adolescents since the beginning of the pandemic. We systematically searched five databases and performed a meta-analysis to explore the pooled prevalence of respiratory viruses in different geographical regions, age groups, and periods and compared the prevalence between COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 patients. Enteroviruses/rhinoviruses were highly prevalent compared to other viruses. Different viruses were dominant in different regions. No significant differences in prevalence were found between different age groups, except for human metapneumovirus. There was an increase in prevalence of non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the second half of the pandemic (July 2021-December 2022). Comparison of COVID-19 and non-COVID patients showed a higher prevalence in the non-COVID group, significant for influenza, seasonal coronaviruses, and human parainfluenza viruses. Our findings indicate that enteroviruses/rhinoviruses were less impacted by healthcare measures compared with other respiratory viruses. The relaxation of measures in the second half led to an increased pooled prevalence of infections. Several factors may explain the lower prevalence among individuals infected with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the onset of COVID-19, several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Because the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence. An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, 2 panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, because 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)' evidence-to-decision framework was used to produce the guidelines. After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since the onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9–95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6–98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2–73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5–99.2%), respectively. Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of these guidelines is to identify the most appropriate diagnostic test and/or diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations are intended to provide guidance to clinicians, clinical microbiologists, other health care personnel, and decision makers. An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews, with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Quality of evidence assessment was based on the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation - adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations) approach. A total of 43 PICO questions were selected that involve the following types of populations: (a) patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19; (b) travellers, healthcare workers, and other individuals at risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2; (c) asymptomatic individuals, and (d) close contacts of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The type of diagnostic test (commercial rapid nucleic acid amplification tests and rapid antigen detection), biomaterial, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, age, disease severity, and risk of developing severe disease are also taken into consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although molecular tests are considered the reference standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostics, serological and immunological tests may be useful in specific settings. This review summarizes the underlying principles and performance of COVID-19 serological and immunological testing. Selected peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19 related serology and immunology published between December 2019 and March 2021. Serological tests are highly specific but heterogeneous in their sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For certain indications, including delayed disease presentations, serological tests can have added value. The presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may indicate a recent or past COVID-19 infection. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) antibody tests have the advantages of being easy and fast to perform, but many have a low sensitivity in acute settings. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) have higher sensitivities. Besides humoral immunity, cellular immunity is also essential for successful host defences against viruses. Enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assays can be used to measure T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2. The presence of cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in never exposed patients suggests the possibility of cellular immunity induced by other circulating coronaviruses. T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 have also been detected in recovered COVID-19 patients with no detectable antibodies. Serological and immunological tests are primarily applied for population-based seroprevalence studies to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control measures and increase our understanding of the immunology behind COVID-19. Combining molecular diagnostics with serological tests may optimize the detection of COVID-19. As not all infected patients will develop antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, assessment of cellular immunity may provide complementary information on whether a patient has been previously infected with COVID-19. More studies are needed to understand the correlations of these serological and immunological parameters with protective immunity, taking into account the different circulating virus variants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]