Aims Little is known about the prevalence of aortic aneurysms among people living with HIV (PLWH). We investigated whether HIV status is independently associated with having aortic aneurysms. Furthermore, we determined risk factors associated with aortic aneurysms in PLWH. Methods and results PLWH aged ≥40 years (n = 594) were recruited from the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection study and matched for age and sex with uninfected controls (n = 1188) from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Aortic dimensions were assessed using contrast enhanced computed tomography. Aortic aneurysms were defined according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, i.e. an aortic dilation of ≥50% or an infrarenal aortic diameter of ≥30 mm. Among PLWH and uninfected controls, the median (interquartile range) age was 52 (47–60) and 52 (48–61) and 88% and 90% were male, respectively. We found 46 aneurysms in 42 (7.1%) PLWH and 31 aneurysms in 29 (2.4%) uninfected controls (P < 0.001). PLWH had a significantly higher prevalence of ascending aortic aneurysms and infrarenal aortic aneurysms. In an adjusted model, HIV was independently associated with aortic aneurysms (adjusted odds ratio; 4.51 [95% confidence interval 2.56–8.08], P < 0.001). Within PLWH, obesity and hepatitis B co-infection were associated with aortic aneurysms. Conclusion PLWH had four-fold higher odds of aortic aneurysms compared to uninfected controls, and HIV status was independently associated with aortic aneurysms. Among PLWH, age, obesity and hepatitis B co-infection were associated with higher odds of aortic aneurysms. Our findings suggest that increased attention to aortic aneurysms in PLWH may be beneficial.

The purpose of this study was to characterize the diagnostic performance of a newly developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) in blood. Blood samples were collected during hospitalization of 165 inpatients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and from 505 outpatients with relevant symptoms of COVID-19 simultaneously with PCR-testing. For the 143 inpatients who had their first blood sample collected within 2 weeks after PCR-confirmed infection, the diagnostic sensitivity of the ELISA was 91.6%. The mean NP concentration of the 131 ELISA-positive blood samples was 1,734 pg/ml (range: [10-3,840] pg/ml). An exponential decline in NP concentration was observed for 368 blood samples collected over the first 4 weeks after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and all blood samples taken later had an NP concentration below the 10 pg/ml diagnostic cut-off. The diagnostic sensitivity of the ELISA was 81.4% for the 43 blood samples collected from outpatients with a simultaneous positive PCR-test, and the mean NP concentration of the 35 ELISA-positive samples was 157 pg/ml (range: [10-1,377] pg/ml). For the 462 outpatients with a simultaneous negative PCR-test, the diagnostic specificity of the ELISA was 99.8%. In conclusion, the SARS-CoV-2 NP ELISA is a suitable laboratory diagnostic test for COVID-19. Particularly, for hospitals, where blood samples are readily available, screening of serum or plasma samples by ELISA can facilitate prevention of nosocomial infections and reduce the requirement for laborious swab sampling and subsequent PCR-analysis to confirmatory tests.

The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of self-collected versus healthcare worker (HCW)-collected swabs for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Symptomatic individuals referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing were invited to provide mobile-phone video-instructed self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal samples followed by a HCW-collected oropharyngeal sample. All samples were sent for analysis to the same microbiology laboratory, and the number of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the two tests was compared. A total of 109 participants were included, and 19 participants had SARS-CoV-2-positive results. The diagnostic sensitivity of the self-collected and HCW-collected swabs was 84.2% and 89.5%, respectively, with an acceptable agreement, Cohens kappa 0.82, p < 0.001. Further, results from a questionnaire answered by the participants found that loss of smell as a self-reported symptom was a strong predictor for a SARS-CoV-2-positive test. In conclusion, we found that self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing can be reliable compared to HCW-collected oropharyngeal samples.