: Opportunistic Infections (OIs) still remain a major cause of morbidity and death in children with either malignant or nonmalignant disease. : OIs are defined as those infections occurring due to bacteria, fungi, viruses or commensal organisms that normally inhabit the human body and do not cause a disease in healthy people, but become pathogenic when the body's defense system is impaired. OIs can also be represented by unusually severe infections caused by common pathogens. An OI could present itself at the onset of a primary immunodeficiency syndrome as a life-threatening event. More often, OI is a therapyassociated complication in patients needing immunosuppressive treatment, among long-term hospitalised patients or in children who undergo bone marrow or solid organ transplantation. : The aim of the present review is to provide a comprehensive and ‘easy to read’ text that briefly summarises the currently available knowledge about OIs in order to define when an infection should be considered as opportunistic in pediatrics as a result of an underlying congenital or acquired immune-deficit.

Schistosomiasis is a parasitic infection that has evolved together with the humankind. Evidence in ancient Egyptian medical papyri or Assyrian medical texts reported signs and symptoms that could resemble schistosomiasis; similarly, some biblical passages describe an epidemic (depicted as a ‘curse’) that has been hypothesized to be associated with schistosomiasis’ spread in Mesopotamia. In the modern era, Theodor Maximilian Bilharz and Patrick Manson (the ‘father of tropical medicine’) gave an impetus to the knowledge about the parasite and its spread until the present time, when immunoassays and molecular biology on mummies allowed retracing important milestones regarding schistosomiasis’ evolution. Schistosomiasis affects more than 200 millions of people worldwide and it is an emblem of how hard it is to prevent, control and treat neglected tropical diseases. Our work reviews the history of schistosomiasis with regard to human infections.

Background: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of molecular and serological tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: A total of 346 patients were enrolled in the emergency room. We evaluated three Reverse Transcriptase-real time PCRs (RT-PCRs) including six different gene targets, five serologic rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and one ELISA. The final classification of infected/non-infected patients was performed using Latent Class Analysis combined with clinical re-assessment of incongruous cases. Results: Out of these, 24.6% of patients were classified as infected. The molecular test RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 showed the highest performance with 91.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100.0% PPV and 97.4% NPV respectively. Considering the single gene targets, S and RdRp of RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 had the highest sensitivity (94.1%). The in-house RdRp presented the lowest sensitivity (62.4%). The specificity ranged from 99.2% for in-house RdRp and N2 to 95.0% for E. The PPV ranged from 97.1% of N2 to 85.4% of E and the NPV from 98.1% of S to 89.0% of in-house RdRp. All serological tests had < 50% sensitivity and low PPV and NPV. VivaDiag IgM (RDT) had 98.5% specificity, with 84.0% PPV, but 24.7% sensitivity. Conclusion: Molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection showed excellent specificity, but significant differences in sensitivity. Serological tests have limited utility in a clinical context.