SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) metamorphosed our medical practice. In early June 2020, more than 6,400,000 COVID-19 (coronavirus-19 disease) cases were diagnosed across the world and more than 380,000 deaths were linked to COVID-19. Many medical symptoms of COVID-19 were reported. We will focus, here, on potential impacts of COVID-19 on men's andrological health. Our society (French-speaking society of andrology, SALF) also emitted some recommendations in the andrological management of men infected by SARS-CoV-2. First, considering the fever and the potential presence of SARS-CoV2 in semen, SALF recommends waiting for 3 months (duration of one spermatogenesis cycle and epididymal transit) before restarting ART in the case of men diagnosed COVID-19 positive. Whatever the nature of testosterone and COVID-19 relationships, we recommend an andrological examination, sperm parameters, and hormonal evaluation at the time of the COVID-19 is diagnosed, and several months later. Furthermore, we are concerned by the potential morbid-mortality of the COVID-19, which mainly affects men. This "andrological bias", if proven, must be reduced by specific andrological diagnosis, therapeutic and prophylactic measures. Research in this direction must be substantiated and financially supported over the next few months (years).

From early 2020, a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests was driven by several testing indications, including asymptomatic cases, resulting in the massive roll-out of PCR assays to combat the pandemic. Considering the dynamic of viral shedding during the course of infection, the demand to report cycle threshold (Ct) values rapidly emerged. As Ct values can be affected by a number of factors, we considered that harmonization of semi-quantitative PCR results across laboratories would avoid potential divergent interpretations, particularly in the absence of clinical or serological information. A proposal to harmonize reporting of test results was drafted by the National Reference Centre (NRC) UZ/KU Leuven, distinguishing four categories of positivity based on RNA copies/mL. Pre-quantified control material was shipped to 124 laboratories with instructions to setup a standard curve to define thresholds per assay. For each assay, the mean Ct value and corresponding standard deviation was calculated per target gene, for the three concentrations (107, 105 and 103 copies/mL) that determine the classification. The results of 17 assays are summarized. This harmonization effort allowed to ensure that all Belgian laboratories would report positive PCR results in the same semi-quantitative manner to clinicians and to the national database which feeds contact tracing interventions.

ObjectivesDevelopment and implementation of SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays gained momentum. Laboratories keep on investigating the performance of these assays. In this study, we compared three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.MethodsA total of 186 samples from 84 PCR-positive COVID-19 patients and 120 control samples taken before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were analyzed using commercial serologic assays from Roche, Siemens and DiaSorin. Time after the positive COVID-19 PCR result and onset of symptoms was retrieved from the medical record. An extended golden standard, using the result of all three assays was defined, judging if antibodies are present or absent in a sample. Diagnostic and screening sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative predictive value were calculated.ResultsDiagnostic sensitivity (ability to detect a COVID-19 positive patient) ≥14 days after positive PCR testing was 96.7% (95% CI 88.5–99.6%) for DiaSorin, 93.3% (95% CI 83.8–98.2%) for Roche and 100% (95% CI 94.0–100%) for Siemens. Lower diagnostic sensitivities were observed <14 days after onset of symptoms for all three assay. Diagnostic specificity (ability to detect a COVID-19 negative patient) was 95.0% (95% CI 89.4–98.1%) for DiaSorin, 99.2% (95% CI 95.4–99.9%) for Roche and 100% (95% CI 97.0–100%) for Siemens. The sensitivity/specificity for detecting antibodies (ability of detecting absence (specificity) or presence (sensitivity) of COVID-19 antibodies) was 92.4% (95% CI 86.4–96.3%)/94.9% (95% CI 90.5–97.6%) for DiaSorin, 97.7% (95% CI 93.5–99.5%)/97.1% (95% CI 93.5–99.1%) for Roche and 98.5% (95% CI 94.6–99.8)/97.1 (95% CI 93.5–99.1%) for Siemens.ConclusionsThis study revealed acceptable performance for all three assays. An orthogonal testing algorithm using the Siemens and Roche assay achieved the highest positive predictive values for antibody detection in low seroprevalence settings.

Purpose : In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple serological assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immune response are currently being developed. This study compares the FREND TM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo (NanoEntec) a point of care (POCT) assay with the automated Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 electrochemiluminescent assay (Roche Diagnostics). Methods: Serum samples ( n = 81) from PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive patients at different time points after the onset of symptoms were analyzed with both assays. An additional 24 serum samples with cross reactivity potential were also included. Results: The sensitivity of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay was higher as compared to the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay, especially when using the combined IgM/IgG result in samples analyzed within 6 days after the onset of symptoms (46.2% vs. 15.4%). The sensitivity of both assays increased with increasing time interval after the onset of symptoms and reached 100% for the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay in samples taken 14 days or more after symptom onset. Specificity of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay was 95.8% for IgM, 91.7% for IgG and 87.5% for the combination of both. Conclusion: This study shows that the sensitivity of both assays was highly dependent on the time interval between the onset of the COVID-19 symptoms and serum sampling. Furthermore, rapid serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by means of the FREND TM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo POCT assay showed a comparable diagnostic performance as the reference automated immunoassay.

No abstract