Objective To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure. Design Prospective cross sectional study. Setting Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands. Participants 4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness. Results Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses. Conclusions The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness.

HBsAg immune-escape mutations can favor HBV-transmission also in vaccinated individuals, promote immunosuppression-driven HBV-reactivation, and increase fitness of drug-resistant strains. Stop-codons can enhance HBV oncogenic-properties. Furthermore, as a consequence of the overlapping structure of HBV genome, some immune-escape mutations or stop-codons in HBsAg can derive from drug-resistance mutations in RT. This study is aimed at gaining insight in prevalence and characteristics of immune-associated escape mutations, and stop-codons in HBsAg in chronically HBV-infected patients experiencing nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA) in Europe. This study analyzed 828 chronically HBV-infected European patients exposed to ≥ 1 NA, with detectable HBV-DNA and with an available HBsAg-sequence. The immune-associated escape mutations and the NA-induced immune-escape mutations sI195M, sI196S, and sE164D (resulting from drug-resistance mutation rtM204 V, rtM204I, and rtV173L) were retrieved from literature and examined. Mutations were defined as an aminoacid substitution with respect to a genotype A or D reference sequence. At least one immune-associated escape mutation was detected in 22.1% of patients with rising temporal-trend. By multivariable-analysis, genotype-D correlated with higher selection of ≥ 1 immune-associated escape mutation (OR[95%CI]:2.20[1.32–3.67], P = 0.002). In genotype-D, the presence of ≥ 1 immune-associated escape mutations was significantly higher in drug-exposed patients with drug-resistant strains than with wild-type virus (29.5% vs 20.3% P = 0.012). Result confirmed by analysing drug-naïve patients (29.5% vs 21.2%, P = 0.032). Strong correlation was observed between sP120T and rtM204I/V (P < 0.001), and their co-presence determined an increased HBV-DNA. At least one NA-induced immune-escape mutation occurred in 28.6% of patients, and their selection correlated with genotype-A (OR[95%CI]:2.03[1.32–3.10],P = 0.001). Finally, stop-codons are present in 8.4% of patients also at HBsAg-positions 172 and 182, described to enhance viral oncogenic-properties. Immune-escape mutations and stop-codons develop in a large fraction of NA-exposed patients from Europe. This may represent a potential threat for horizontal and vertical HBV transmission also to vaccinated persons, and fuel drug-resistance emergence.

Objective: To assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period.Design: Prospective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study.Setting: Three public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022.Participants: 6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing.Interventions: Participants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers).Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard.Results: During phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ²test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively).Conclusions: Sensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.

Background: On February 27, 2020, the first patient with COVID-19 was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, nine healthcare workers (HCWs) were diagnosed with COVID-19 in two Dutch teaching hospitals, eight of whom had no history of travel to China or Northern-Italy. A low-threshold screening regimen was implemented to determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs in these two hospitals. Methods: HCWs who suffered from fever or respiratory symptoms were voluntarily tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Findings: Thirteen-hundred fifty-three (14%) of 9,705 HCWs employed were tested, 86 (6%) of whom were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most HCWs suffered from relatively mild disease and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty (93%) HCWs met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. None of the HCWs identified through the screening reported a travel history to China or Northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported to have been exposed to an inpatient known with COVID-19 prior to the onset of symptoms. Interpretation: Within two weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with SARS-CoV-2, probably caused by acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, asks for less stringent use of the currently recommended case-definition for suspected COVID-19. RESEARCH IN PERSPECTIVE: Evidence before this study: This study was conducted in response to the global spread of SARS-CoV-2, and the detection of eight healthcare workers (HCWs) in two Dutch teaching hospitals within two weeks after the first patient with COVID-19 was detected in the Netherlands who had no history of travel to China or Northern-Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. Added value of this study: To the best of our knowledge, this report is the first to describe the prevalence, the clinical presentation and early outcomes of COVID-19 in HCWs, which may be helpful for others seeking to identify HCWs suspected for COVID-19 in an outbreak situation. Implications of all the available evidence: We describe that within two weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with fever or (mild) respiratory symptoms were infected with SARS-CoV-2, probably caused by acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, asks for less stringent use of the currently recommended case-definition for suspected COVID-19.

A new hepatitis B virus variant selected during lamivudine treatment was detected, in which the methionine (rtM204) in the so-called YMDD motif in the C domain of the catalytic site of the polymerase gene was replaced by a serine (rtM204S). This change simultaneously resulted in a tyrosine-195 into valine variant (sY195V) in the surface protein HBsAg. The detection of this YSDD variant was initially observed, after an increase of HBV DNA levels, by sequencing of amplification products from day 586. A specific RFLP assay was developed that could identify 10% of YSDD-containing variants in the virus pool, which enabled detection of this new variant virus at day 506. However, by cloning several PCR products and sequencing individual recombinant clones, the mutation was first identified at day 477, before a significant increase of HBV DNA was observed in serum. The mutation was followed by a leucine to methionine change at position 180 (rtL180M). The consequences of this mutation for disease management and diagnostic strategies are discussed.

Infection with hepatitis E virus (HEV) in immunocompromised patients can lead to severe liver disease. Treatment options for HEV include peginterferon or ribavirin, routinely also used for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We determined the prevalence and clinical consequences of HEV in United States (US) based patients who underwent liver transplantation (LT) for chronic HCV. Seroprevalence of HEV in 145 US LT recipients with a history of chronic HCV was determined pre-LT, 1, 3 and 5 years post-LT. All last available samples and all samples in IgM positive patients and post-LT IgG seroconverters were tested for HEV RNA. Overall anti-HEV seroprevalence was 42 %. Five patients were HEV IgM positive pre-LT, one patient had IgM seroconversion post-LT and eight patients had IgG seroconversion post-LT. None of the tested samples were positive for HEV RNA. Eight out of nine of the post-LT seroconverters had been treated for HCV recurrence before or at the moment of seroconversion. LT recipients in the US are at risk of acquiring HEV. Post-LT HCV treatment with interferons and/or ribavirin may have protected patients against chronic HEV. With the arrival of new direct antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV and the elimination of peginterferon and ribavirin from HCV treatment regimens, the prevalence of chronic HEV in this population may rise again.