To compare the Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen test with the gold standard real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate its role in screening programs. Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay was compared with the gold standard RT-PCR test in a selected cohort of 226 subjects with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, and its accuracy was evaluated. Subsequently, the test was administered to a real-life screening cohort of 1738 cases. ROC analysis was performed to explore test features and cutoffs. All tests were performed in the regional reference laboratory in Umbria, Italy. A 42.0% positive result at RT-PCR was observed in the selected cohort. The Lumipulse® system showed 92.6% sensitivity (95% CI 85.4–97.0%) and 90.8% specificity (95% CI 84.5–95.2%) at 1.24 pg/mL optimal cutoff. In the screening cohort, characterized by 5.2% prevalence of infection, Lumipulse® assay showed 100% sensitivity (95% CI 96.0–100.0%) and 94.8% specificity (95% CI 93.6–95.8%) at 1.645 pg/mL optimal cutoff; the AUC was 97.4%, NPV was 100% (95% CI 99.8–100.0%) and PPV was 51.1% (95% CI 43.5–58.7%). The Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay can be safely employed in the screening strategies in small and large communities and in the general population.

Early COVID-19 treatments can prevent progression to severe disease. However, real-life data are still limited, and studies are warranted to monitor the efficacy and tolerability of these drugs. We retrospectively enrolled outpatients receiving early treatment for COVID-19 in 11 infectious diseases units in the Tuscany region of Italy between 1 January and 31 March 2022, when Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 were circulating. Eligible COVID-19 patients were treated with sotrovimab (SOT), remdesivir (RMD), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NRM/r), or molnupiravir (MOL). We gathered demographic and clinical features, 28-day outcomes (hospitalization or death), and drugs tolerability. A total of 781 patients (median age 69.9, 66% boosted for SARS-CoV-2) met the inclusion criteria, of whom 314 were treated with SOT (40.2%), 205 with MOL (26.3%), 142 with RMD (18.2%), and 120 with NRM/r (15.4%). Overall, 28-day hospitalization and death occurred in 18/781 (2.3%) and 3/781 (0.3%), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression showed that patients receiving SOT had a reduced risk of meeting the composite outcome (28-day hospitalization and/or death) in comparison to the RMD cohort, while no significant differences were evidenced for the MOL and NRM/r groups in comparison to the RMD group. Other predictors of negative outcomes included cancer, chronic kidney disease, and a time between symptoms onset and treatment administration > 3 days. All treatments showed good safety and tolerability, with only eight patients (1%) whose treatment was interrupted due to intolerance. In the first Italian multicenter study presenting real-life data on COVID-19 early treatments, all regimens demonstrated good safety and efficacy. SOT showed a reduced risk of progression versus RMD. No significant differences of outcome were observed in preventing 28-day hospitalization and death among patients treated with RMD, MOL, and NRM/r.

Molecular-based carbapenem resistance testing in Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) is currently limited because of the reliance on positive blood culture (BC) samples. The T2Resistance™ panel may now allow the detection of carbapenemase- and other β-lactamase encoding genes directly from blood samples. We detected carbapenem resistance genes in 11 (84.6%) of 13 samples from patients with BC-documented BSIs (10 caused by KPC-producing Klebsiellapneumoniae and 1 caused by VIM/CMY-producing Citrobacter freundii). Two samples that tested negative for carbapenem resistance genes were from patients with BC-documented BSIs caused by KPC-producing K. pneumoniae who were receiving effective antibiotic therapy. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the T2Resistance™ panel can be a reliable tool for diagnosing carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial BSIs.

The rapid and accurate identification of pathogens responsible for sepsis is essential for prompt and effective antimicrobial therapy. Molecular technologies have been developed to detect the most common causative agents, with high sensitivity and short time to result (TTR). T2 Bacteria Panel (T2), based on a combination of PCR and T2 magnetic resonance, can identify directly in blood samples Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecium, and Acinetobacter baumannii pathogens. This study evaluates the role of T2 in the diagnosis of sepsis and its impact on patient management, specifically in terms of TTR and the switch from empirical to directed therapy, comparing results of blood culture (BC) and T2 assay in 82 patients with sepsis. T2 significantly improved the detection of the causative agents of sepsis. For pathogens included in the panel, T2 sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 86.3–100.0), significantly higher than that of BC (54.8%, 95% CI 36.0–72.7). The TTR (median, IQR) of positive T2 (3.66 h, 3.59–4.31) was significantly shorter than that of the positive BC (37.58 h, 20.10–47.32). A significant reduction in the duration of empiric therapy and an increase in the percentage of patients with switched therapy was observed in patients with a positive T2 result. In conclusion, T2 can shorten and improve the etiological diagnosis of sepsis with a positive impact on patient management.