SARS-CoV-2 and influenza are the main respiratory viruses for which effective vaccines are currently available. Strategies in which COVID-19 and influenza vaccines are administered simultaneously or combined into a single preparation are advantageous and may increase vaccination uptake. Here, we comprehensively review the available evidence on COVID-19/influenza vaccine co-administration and combination vaccine candidates from the standpoints of safety, immunogenicity, efficacy, policy and public acceptance. While several observational studies have shown that the trained immunity induced by influenza vaccines can protect against some COVID-19-related endpoints, it is not yet understood whether co-administration or combination vaccines can exert additive effects on relevant outcomes. In randomized controlled trials, co-administration has proved safe, with a reactogenicity profile similar to that of either vaccine administered alone. From the immunogenicity standpoint, the immune response towards four influenza strains and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in co-administration groups is generally non-inferior to that seen in groups receiving either vaccine alone. Several public health authorities have advocated co-administration. Different combination vaccine candidates are in (pre)-clinical development. The hesitancy towards vaccine co-administration or combination vaccines is a multifaceted phenomenon and may be higher than the acceptance of either vaccine administered separately. Public health implications are discussed.

The rapid and presumptive detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants may be performed using multiplex RT-PCR assays. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of five qualitative RT-PCR tests as compared with next-generation sequencing (NGS). We retrospectively examined a multi-variant panel (n = 72) of SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swabs categorized as variants of concern (Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta), variants under monitoring (Iota and Kappa) and wild-type strains circulating in Liguria (Italy) from January to August 2021. First, NGS libraries of study samples were prepared and mapped to the reference genome. Then, specimens were screened for the detection of L452R, W152C, K417T, K417N, E484Q, E484K and N501Y mutations using the SARS-CoV-2 Variants II Assay Allplex, UltraGene Assay SARS-CoV-2 452R & 484K & 484Q Mutations V1, COVID-19 Ultra Variant Catcher, SARS-CoV-2 Extended ELITe MGB and Simplexa SARS-CoV-2 Variants Direct. The overall accuracy of these assays ranged from 96.9% to 100%. Specificity and sensitivity were 100% and 96–100%, respectively. We highly recommend the use of these assays as second-level tests in the routine workflow of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory diagnostics, as they are accurate, user friendly, low cost, may identify specific mutations in about 2–3 h and, therefore, optimize the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Accurate and rapid molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 is a crucial step to tackle the ongoing pandemic. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the real-world performance of the novel RT-PCR STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 assay in a large number of nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens eluted in universal transport medium. The secondary objective was to evaluate the compatibility of this kit in testing NP samples eluted in an inactivated transport medium (essential for point-of-care testing) and lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens, which are commonly collected in critical care. A total of 591 samples were analyzed. Compared with the standard extraction-based RT-PCR Allplex 2019-nCoV (time-to-result of 270 min), the sensitivities of the STANDARD M10 were 100% (95% CI: 98.1–100%), 95.5% (95% CI: 91.7–97.6%), and 99.5% (95% CI: 97.2–99.9%) for ≥1 gene, the ORF1ab gene, and the E gene, respectively, while the specificity was 100% (95% CI: 98.7–100%). The diagnostic accuracy was 100% in testing both NP samples eluted in an inactivated transport medium and LRT specimens. STANDARD M10 reliably detects SARS-CoV-2 in 60 min, may be used as a POC tool, and is suitable for testing LRT specimens in the critical care setting.

In 2022–23, the human monkeypox virus (MPXV) caused a global outbreak in several non-endemic countries. Here, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of four real-time qualitative PCR assays for the laboratory diagnosis of mpox (monkeypox) monkeypox disease. From July to August 2022, 27 positive and 10 negative specimens (lesion, crust and exudate swabs) were tested in the laboratory of the Hygiene Unit of the San Martino Hospital (Genoa, Italy) by using home-made real-time PCR to detect MPXV generic G2R_G DNA. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, we also retrospectively analyzed these specimens using RealCycler MONK-UX/-GX (Progenie Molecular), STANDARD M10 MPX/OPX (SD Biosensor), Novaplex MPXV (Seegene Inc.) and RealStar Orthopoxvirus PCR Kit 1.0 (Altona Diagnostics) assays, recognized as research-use-only tests. The diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity of these assays ranged from 97.3% (95% CI: 86.2–99.5%) to 100% (95% CI: 90.6–100%) and 96.3% (95% CI: 81.72–99.34%) to 100% (95% CI: 72.2–100%), respectively. The RealCycler MONK-UX and STANDARD M10 MPX/OPX did not detect one positive sample with a cycle threshold of 36. The overall specificity was 100% (95% CI: 72.2–100%), and Cohen’s Kappa values ranged from 1 (95% CI: 0.67–1) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.61–1). As they are highly accurate, reliable and user-friendly, these tests should be recommended for the routine or rapid laboratory discrimination of mpox from other rash illnesses.

Although the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered a standard-of-care assay for the laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, several limitations of this method have been described. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) is an alternative molecular assay and is potentially able to overcome some intrinsic shortcomings of RT-PCR. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the novel HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP assay. In this retrospective analysis, a total of 400 routinely collected leftover nasopharyngeal samples with a known RT-PCR result were tested by means of the HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP assay. The overall sensitivity and specificity values of HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP versus RT-PCR were 97.0% (95% CI: 93.6–98.9%) and 98.5% (95% CI: 95.7–99.7%), respectively. Inter-assay agreement was almost perfect (κ = 0.96). Concordance was perfect in samples with high viral loads (cycle threshold < 30). The average time to a positive result on RT-LAMP was 17 min. HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP is a reliable molecular diagnostic kit for detecting SARS-CoV-2, and its performance is comparable to that of RT-PCR. Shorter turnaround times and the possibility of performing molecular diagnostics in the point-of-care setting make it a valuable option for facilities without sophisticated laboratory equipment.

Highly accurate lateral flow immunochromatographic tests (LFTs) are an important public health tool to tackle the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the comparative diagnostic performance of the novel ND COVID-19 LFT under real-world conditions. A total of 400 nasopharyngeal swab specimens with a wide range of viral loads were tested in both reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and ND LFT. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI: 76.7–90.7%) and 100% (95% CI: 98.7–100%), respectively. There was a clear association between the false-negative rate and sample viral load: the sensitivity parameters for specimens with cycle threshold values of 3.95 × 10⁶ copies/mL) and ≥30 (≤1.29 × 10⁵ copies/mL) were 100% and 50%, respectively. The performance was maximized in testing samples with viral loads ≥1.29 × 10⁵ copies/mL. These findings suggest that the ND LFT is sufficiently accurate and useful for mass population screening programs, especially in high-prevalence and resource-constrained settings or during periods when the epidemic curve is rising. Other public health implications were also discussed.