Dysbiosis of gut microbiota (GM) has been involved in the pathophysiology of arterial hypertension (HT), via a putative role of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs). Its role in the circadian regulation of blood pressure (BP), also called “the dipping profile”, has been poorly investigated. Sixteen male volunteers and 10 female partners were subjected to 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring and were categorized in normotensive (NT) versus HT, as well as in dippers versus non-dippers. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based metabolomics was performed on stool samples. A 5-year comparative follow-up of BP profiles and stool metabolomes was done in men. Significant correlations between stool metabolome and 24 h mean BP levels were found in both male and female cohorts and in the entire cohort (R² = 0.72, R² = 0.79, and R² = 0.45, respectively). Multivariate analysis discriminated dippers versus non-dippers in both male and female cohorts and in the entire cohort (Q² = 0.87, Q² = 0.98, and Q² = 0.68, respectively). Fecal amounts of acetate, propionate, and butyrate were higher in HT versus NT patients (p = 0.027; p = 0.015 and p = 0.015, respectively), as well as in non-dippers versus dippers (p = 0.027, p = 0.038, and p = 0.036, respectively) in the entire cohort. SCFA levels were significantly different in patients changing of dipping status over the 5-year follow-up. In conclusion, stool metabolome changes upon global and circadian BP profiles in both genders.

(1) Background: In the current context of the COVID-19 crisis, there is a need for fast, easy-to-use, and sensitive diagnostic tools in addition to molecular methods. We have therefore decided to evaluate the performance of newly available antigen detection kits in “real-life” laboratory conditions. (2) Methods: The sensitivity and specificity of two rapid diagnostic tests (RDT)—the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip from Coris Bioconcept, Belgium (CoRDT), and the coronavirus antigen rapid test cassette from Healgen Scientific, LLC, USA (HeRDT)—were evaluated on 193 nasopharyngeal samples using RT-PCR as the gold standard. (3) Results: The sensitivity obtained for HeRDT was 88% for all collected samples and 91.1% for samples with Ct ≤ 31. For the CoRDT test, the sensitivity obtained was 62% for all collected samples and 68.9% for samples with Ct ≤ 31. (4) Conclusions: Despite the excellent specificity obtained for both kits, the poor sensitivity of the CoRDT did not allow for its use in the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19. HeRDT satisfied the World Health Organization’s performance criteria for rapid antigen detection tests. Its high sensitivity, quick response, and ease of use allowed for the implementation of HeRDT at the laboratory of the University Hospital of Liège.