Frequent, low-cost, universal testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with quarantine of those with a positive result has been suggested as a strategy to address the ...coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Specifically, home or community use of tests that use paper strip detection devices, which may have reduced sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2, has been advocated. There are several potential challenges or problems with this strategy, including the limited availability of such tests, consequences of incorrect test results, difficulties with adherence to testing, and the questionable accuracy of such tests for detection of infectious people. Because of these, we think it is premature to strongly advocate for such a testing strategy, as the adverse consequences may outweigh any benefits. High-quality outcome data demonstrating the efficacy of this testing strategy are needed before widespread implementation.
Widespread testing for the presence of the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals remains vital for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic prior to ...the advent of an effective treatment. Challenges in testing can be traced to an initial shortage of supplies, expertise, and/or instrumentation necessary to detect the virus by quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR), the most robust, sensitive, and specific assay currently available. Here we show that academic biochemistry and molecular biology laboratories equipped with appropriate expertise and infrastructure can replicate commercially available SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test kits and backfill pipeline shortages. The Georgia Tech COVID-19 Test Kit Support Group, composed of faculty, staff, and trainees across the biotechnology quad at Georgia Institute of Technology, synthesized multiplexed primers and probes and formulated a master mix composed of enzymes and proteins produced in-house. Our in-house kit compares favorably with a commercial product used for diagnostic testing. We also developed an environmental testing protocol to readily monitor surfaces for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. Our blueprint should be readily reproducible by research teams at other institutions, and our protocols may be modified and adapted to enable SARS-CoV-2 detection in more resource-limited settings.
Highlights • Only clinically validated HPV tests should be used in cervical cancer screening. • VALGENT is a robust protocol for validation of hrHPV and HPV genotyping assays. • In VALGENT-2 ...sufficient clinical accuracy of three HPV assays was demonstrated. • VALGENT is producing a comprehensive study resource for HPV test comparisons. • Integration of VALGENT into the global WHO reference laboratory network is planned.
We provide a comparison between 22C3 pharmDx and SP263 assay, for evaluating programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in advanced gastric cancer (GC) patients.
The PD-L1 immunohistochemistry by ...22C3 pharmDx and SP263 assays was performed in the center of the tumor (CT) and invasive margin (IM) in 379 GC tissues using tissue microarrays and interpreted as combined positive score (CPS) and tumor proportion score (TPS). Of the total samples, 55 samples were independently reviewed by five pathologists.
The two assays showed a high correlation in both the CPS and TPS. At a CPS ≥ 1 cut-off, 219 (57.8%) and 231 (60.9%) GCs were positive for PD-L1 with the 22C3 and SP263 assays, and at ≥ 10 cut-off, 37 (9.8%) and 36 (9.5%) GCs were positive, respectively. The overall percent agreement (OPA) was greater than 90% with CPS ≥ 1 and ≥ 10 cut-offs, and TPS ≥ 1% and ≥ 10% cut-offs. There was higher OPA between the two assays with a CPS cut-off ≥ 10 (99.2%) than ≥ 1 (94.7%). The percent agreement between the CT and IM was higher with a CPS cut-off ≥ 10 (92.9%) than ≥ 1 (77.6%). Patient with positive expression at CPS ≥ 5 cut-off had a significantly better outcomes in both assays. Interobserver variability among five pathologists was higher than the assay variability.
Two assays for PD-L1 expression in GC showed high agreement. These results provide guidance for selecting eligible patients with GC for pembrolizumab treatment.
Recently, bioMérieux, France, introduced the Rapidec Carba NP test kit for rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. This kit was evaluated in this study, and we report ...sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 92.6%, 96.2%, 95.83%, and 92.6%, respectively. The test was easy to perform and interpret and relatively inexpensive ($5/Rs 300 per test) and provides a practical solution for early detection of carbapenemase-producing, multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria.
Background
Differentiating both typhoid (Salmonella Typhi) and paratyphoid (Salmonella Paratyphi A) infection from other causes of fever in endemic areas is a diagnostic challenge. Although ...commercial point‐of‐care rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for enteric fever are available as alternatives to the current reference standard test of blood or bone marrow culture, or to the widely used Widal Test, their diagnostic accuracy is unclear. If accurate, they could potentially replace blood culture as the World Health Organization (WHO)‐recommended main diagnostic test for enteric fever.
Objectives
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and prototypes for detecting Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi A infection in symptomatic persons living in endemic areas.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, IndMED, African Index Medicus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 4 March 2016. We manually searched WHO reports, and papers from international conferences on Salmonella infections. We also contacted test manufacturers to identify studies.
Selection criteria
We included diagnostic accuracy studies of enteric fever RDTs in patients with fever or with symptoms suggestive of enteric fever living in endemic areas. We classified the reference standard used as either Grade 1 (result from a blood culture and a bone marrow culture) or Grade 2 (result from blood culture and blood polymerase chain reaction, or from blood culture alone).
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted the test result data. We used a modified QUADAS‐2 extraction form to assess methodological quality. We performed a meta‐analysis when there were sufficient studies for the test and heterogeneity was reasonable.
Main results
Thirty‐seven studies met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 5080 participants (range 50 to 1732). Enteric fever prevalence rates in the study populations ranged from 1% to 75% (median prevalence 24%, interquartile range (IQR) 11% to 46%). The included studies evaluated 16 different RDTs, and 16 studies compared two or more different RDTs. Only three studies used the Grade 1 reference standard, and only 11 studies recruited unselected febrile patients. Most included studies were from Asia, with five studies from sub‐Saharan Africa. All of the RDTs were designed to detect S.Typhi infection only.
Most studies evaluated three RDTs and their variants: TUBEX in 14 studies; Typhidot (Typhidot, Typhidot‐M, and TyphiRapid‐Tr02) in 22 studies; and the Test‐It Typhoid immunochromatographic lateral flow assay, and its earlier prototypes (dipstick, latex agglutination) developed by the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam (KIT) in nine studies. Meta‐analyses showed an average sensitivity of 78% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71% to 85%) and specificity of 87% (95% CI 82% to 91%) for TUBEX; and an average sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 59% to 78%) and specificity of 90% (95% CI 78% to 93%) for all Test‐It Typhoid and prototype tests (KIT). Across all forms of the Typhidot test, the average sensitivity was 84% (95% CI 73% to 91%) and specificity was 79% (95% CI 70% to 87%). When we based the analysis on the 13 studies of the Typhidot test that either reported indeterminate test results or where the test format means there are no indeterminate results, the average sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 65% to 87%) and specificity was 77% (95% CI 66% to 86%). We did not identify any difference in either sensitivity or specificity between TUBEX, Typhidot, and Test‐it Typhoid tests when based on comparison to the 13 Typhidot studies where indeterminate results are either reported or not applicable. If TUBEX and Test‐it Typhoid are compared to all Typhidot studies, the sensitivity of Typhidot was higher than Test‐it Typhoid (15% (95% CI 2% to 28%), but other comparisons did not show a difference at the 95% level of CIs.
In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients presenting with fever where 30% (300 patients) have enteric fever, on average Typhidot tests reporting indeterminate results or where tests do not produce indeterminate results will miss the diagnosis in 66 patients with enteric fever, TUBEX will miss 66, and Test‐It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests will miss 93. In the 700 people without enteric fever, the number of people incorrectly diagnosed with enteric fever would be 161 with Typhidot tests, 91 with TUBEX, and 70 with Test‐It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests. The CIs around these estimates were wide, with no difference in false positive results shown between tests.
The quality of the data for each study was evaluated using a standardized checklist called QUADAS‐2. Overall, the certainty of the evidence in the studies that evaluated enteric fever RDTs was low.
Authors' conclusions
In 37 studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for enteric fever, few studies were at a low risk of bias. The three main RDT tests and variants had moderate diagnostic accuracy. There was no evidence of a difference between the average sensitivity and specificity of the three main RDT tests. More robust evaluations of alternative RDTs for enteric fever are needed.
2 April 2019
Up to date
All studies incorporated from most recent search
All eligible published studies found in the last search (4 Mar, 2016) were included
To our knowledge no previous study has assessed the performance of a rapid antigen diagnostic immunoassay (RAD) conducted at the point of care (POC). We evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test ...Device for diagnosis of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in symptomatic patients (n = 412) attending primary healthcare centres.
RAD was performed immediately after sampling following the manufacturer's instructions (reading at 15 min). RT-PCRs were carried out within 24 h of specimen collection. Samples displaying discordant results were processed for culture in Vero E6 cells. Presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in cell cultures was confirmed by RT-PCR.
Out of 412 patients, 43 (10.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR and RAD, and 358 (86.9%) tested negative by both methods; discordant results (RT-PCR+/RAD–) were obtained in 11 patients (2.7%). Overall specificity and sensitivity of rapid antigen detection (RAD) was 100% (95%CI 98.7–100%) and 79.6% (95%CI 67.0–88.8%), respectively, taking RT-PCR as the reference. Overall RAD negative predictive value for an estimated prevalence of 5% and 10% was 99% (95%CI 97.4–99.6%) and 97.9% (95%CI 95.9–98.9), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 could not be cultured from specimens yielding RT-PCR+/RAD– results (n = 11).
The Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device performed well as a POC test for early diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary healthcare centres. More crucially, the data suggested that patients with RT-PCR-proven COVID-19 testing negative by RAD are unlikely to be infectious.
The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) quickly spread all over China and to more than 20 other countries. Although the virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome ...coronavirus SARS‐Cov‐2) nucleic acid real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test has become the standard method for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, these real‐time PCR test kits have many limitations. In addition, high false‐negative rates were reported. There is an urgent need for an accurate and rapid test method to quickly identify a large number of infected patients and asymptomatic carriers to prevent virus transmission and assure timely treatment of patients. We have developed a rapid and simple point‐of‐care lateral flow immunoassay that can detect immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies simultaneously against SARS‐CoV‐2 virus in human blood within 15 minutes which can detect patients at different infection stages. With this test kit, we carried out clinical studies to validate its clinical efficacy uses. The clinical detection sensitivity and specificity of this test were measured using blood samples collected from 397 PCR confirmed COVID‐19 patients and 128 negative patients at eight different clinical sites. The overall testing sensitivity was 88.66% and specificity was 90.63%. In addition, we evaluated clinical diagnosis results obtained from different types of venous and fingerstick blood samples. The results indicated great detection consistency among samples from fingerstick blood, serum and plasma of venous blood. The IgM‐IgG combined assay has better utility and sensitivity compared with a single IgM or IgG test. It can be used for the rapid screening of SARS‐CoV‐2 carriers, symptomatic or asymptomatic, in hospitals, clinics, and test laboratories.
•The new antigen test is an indispensable tool in the control of the pandemic due to its adequate sensitivity and specificity.•The implementation of the point of care technique in primary care is ...feasible and has good results.•Results of the antigen techniques are determined by an onset of symptoms inferior to five days and a CT below 27 in PCR.
RT-qPCR is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment, time consuming, high cost and skilled staff limit the use of these techniques. A more rapid and high-throughput method is essential.
We analyzed clinical data and nasopharyngeal samples, collected during September 2020, from patients attended at the emergency department of a secondary hospital and in two primary healthcare centers in Madrid. The performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 AG Rapid Test Device for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was compared to RT-qPCR.
255 nasopharyngeal swabs, including 150 from the emergency department and 105 from primary helthcare centers, were tested. 184 patients were symptomatic (72.1 %). Amongst the 60 positive RT-qPCR samples, 40 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 73.3 %. All the samples detected positive with the rapid antigen test were also positive with RT-qPCR. The median cycle threshold was 23.28 (IQR 18.5–30.16). Patients with less than seven days onset of symptoms showed a higher viral load, and sensitivity for rapid antigen test (86.5 %), compared to those with more days (sensitivity of 53.8 %)(p < 0.004).
The rapid antigen test evaluated in this study showed a high sensitivity and specificity in samples obtained during the first week of symptoms and with high viral loads. This assay seems to be an effective strategy for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for the rapid identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.
PDF
