Despite their similarities, some of the epidemiologic characteristics of hMPV and RSV differ. The most striking difference is the annual distribution of RSV and hMPV infections.

OBJECTIVETo compare different techniques of endoscope sampling to assess residual bacterial contamination.DESIGNDiagnostic study.SETTINGThe endoscopy unit of an 1,100-bed university hospital performing ~13,000 endoscopic procedures annually.METHODSIn total, 4 sampling techniques, combining flushing fluid with or without a commercial endoscope brush, were compared in an endoscope model. Based on these results, sterile physiological saline flushing with or without PULL THRU brush was selected for evaluation on 40 flexible endoscopes by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurement and bacterial culture. Acceptance criteria from the French National guideline (<25 colony-forming units [CFU] per endoscope and absence of indicator microorganisms) were used as part of the evaluation.RESULTSOn biofilm-coated PTFE tubes, physiological saline in combination with a PULL THRU brush generated higher mean ATP values (2,579 relative light units [RLU]) compared with saline alone (1,436 RLU; P=.047). In the endoscope samples, culture yield using saline plus the PULL THRU (mean, 43 CFU; range, 1–400 CFU) was significantly higher than that of saline alone (mean, 17 CFU; range, 0–500 CFU; P<.001). In samples obtained using the saline+PULL THRU brush method, ATP values of samples classified as unacceptable were significantly higher than those of samples classified as acceptable (P=.001).CONCLUSIONPhysiological saline flushing combined with PULL THRU brush to sample endoscopes generated higher ATP values and increased the yield of microbial surveillance culture. Consequently, the acceptance rate of endoscopes based on a defined CFU limit was significantly lower when the saline+PULL THRU method was used instead of saline alone.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1062–1069

Background In a hospital setting, there is a need for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 to guide isolation measures and targeted admission. Aim First, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of five SARS-CoV-2 rapid nucleocapsid protein antigen detection (RAD) assays (Biosynex, Biotical, Orient Gene, Panbio, SD Biosensor). Secondly, we described the performance and impact of the implementation of the SD Biosensor assay at our emergency department. Methods Sensitivity and specificity of the five RAD assays were analyzed on 100 respiratory samples: 60 real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive samples, 24 SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative samples and 16 samples positive for other respiratory pathogens. We adapted the manufacturer’s protocol, to validate the antigen tests on transport media used for rRT-PCR in our routine practice. The SD Biosensor RAD assay was implemented as screening method for rapid diagnosis and targeted admission. Findings Sensitivity of the included RAD assays ranged from 88.9% to 100% for samples with Ct <26, specificity from 46.2% to 100%. During the implementation period, 4195 RAD tests were performed. Due to the rapid RAD result, 157 patients were transferred directly to the COVID-19 cohort instead of the regular ward (n=47) or the temporary COVID-19 ward (n=110). Conclusion The SD Biosensor, Biotical and Panbio SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests had an acceptable overall performance and seem to be able to detect most of the contagious patients. In the context of high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, RAD tests can be used as a rapid screening tool, to guide infection prevention measures and aid targeted admission.

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in the general population in the context of a relatively high immunity gained through the early waves of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), and vaccination campaigns. Despite this context, a significant number of patients were hospitalized, and identifying the risk factors associated with severe disease in the Omicron era is critical for targeting further preventive, and curative interventions. We retrospectively analyzed the individual medical records of 1501 SARS-CoV-2 positive hospitalized patients between 13 December 2021, and 13 February 2022, in Belgium, of which 187 (12.5%) were infected with Delta, and 1036 (69.0%) with Omicron. Unvaccinated adults showed an increased risk of moderate/severe/critical/fatal COVID-19 (crude OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.09–2.16) compared to vaccinated patients, whether infected with Omicron or Delta. In adults infected with Omicron and moderate/severe/critical/fatal COVID-19 (n = 323), immunocompromised patients showed an increased risk of in-hospital mortality related to COVID-19 (adjusted OR 2.42; 95% CI 1.39–4.22), compared to non-immunocompromised patients. The upcoming impact of the pandemic will be defined by evolving viral variants, and the immune system status of the population. The observations support that, in the context of an intrinsically less virulent variant, vaccination and underlying patient immunity remain the main drivers of severe disease.

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotype 3 is an emerging pathogen in the developed world. As the clinical manifestations and routine laboratory parameters are often nonspecific, accurate diagnostic tests are crucial. In the current study, the performance of six serological assays and three PCR assays for the detection of HEV was evaluated. In the setting of the Ghent University Hospital, patients with clinically suspected HEV infection were tested for the presence of HEV IgM and IgG as well as HEV RNA. Serology was performed using six commercial HEV ELISA assays: Biorex, Wantai and Mikrogen IgM and IgG. HEV RNA was detected using one commercial assay (Altona RealStar®), and two optimized in-house real-time RT-PCR assays (according to Jothikumar et al., 2006 and Gyarmati et al., 2007). In addition, all three PCR assays were performed on 16 external quality control (EQC) samples. In a period of 39 months (January 2011-April 2014), 70 patients were enrolled. Using different ELISA assays, the prevalence of antibodies varied from 5.7% to 14.3% for HEV IgM and from 15.7% to 20.0% for IgG. All but two of the results of the PCR assays performed on clinical samples agreed. However, 10 out of 16 EQC samples results showed major discrepancies. We observed important differences in the performance of various serological and PCR assays. For this reason, results of both serological and molecular tests for HEV should be interpreted with caution.