scholarly journals Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Schellenberg ◽  
Margaret Ormond ◽  
Yoav Keynan
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
N Gene ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Viral Transport Medium ◽  
Point Of Care Tests

AbstractThe current scale of public and private testing cannot be expected to meet the emerging need for higher levels of community-level and repeated screening of asymptomatic Canadians for SARS-CoV-2. Rapid point-of-care techniques are increasingly being deployed to fill the gap in screening levels required to identify undiagnosed individuals with high viral loads. However, rapid, point-of-care tests often have lower sensitivity in practice. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for SARS-CoV-2 has proven sensitive and specific and provides visual results in minutes. Using a commercially available kit for RT-LAMP and primer set targetting nucleocapsid (N) gene, we tested a blinded set of 101 archived nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples with known RT-PCR results. RT-LAMP reactions were incubated at 65°C for 30 minutes, using heat-inactivated nasopharyngeal swab sample in viral transport medium, diluted tenfold in water, as input. RT-LAMP agreed with all RT-PCR defined negatives (N=51), and all positives with Ct less than 20 (N=24), 65% of positives with Ct between 20-30 (N=17), and no positives with Ct greater than 30 (N=9). RT-LAMP requires fewer and different core components, so may not compete directly with the mainline testing workflow, preserving precious central laboratory resources and gold standard tests for those with the greatest need. Careful messaging must be provided when using less-sensitive tests, so that people are not falsely reassured by negative results – “glass half empty” – in exchange for reliable detection of those with high levels of virus within an hour, using <$10 worth of chemicals – “glass half full”.

scholarly journals Decreased Sensitivity of the Serological Detection of Feline Immunodeficiency Virus Infection Potentially Due to Imported Genetic Variants

Viruses ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Frankenfeld ◽  
Theres Meili ◽  
Marina Meli ◽  
Barbara Riond ◽  
A. Helfer-Hungerbuehler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feline Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Diagnostic Efficiency ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Feline Immunodeficiency Virus Infection ◽  
Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
Screening Assays ◽  
Diagnostic Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Point Of Care Tests

Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) is a lentivirus of domestic cats worldwide. Diagnosis usually relies on antibody screening by point-of-care tests (POCT), e.g., by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), and confirmation using Western blot (WB). We increasingly observed ELISA-negative, WB-positive samples and aimed to substantiate these observations using 1194 serum/plasma samples collected from 1998 to 2019 primarily from FIV-suspect cats. While 441 samples tested positive and 375 tested negative by ELISA and WB, 81 samples had discordant results: 70 were false ELISA-negative (WB-positive) and 11 were false ELISA-positive (WB-negative); 297 ambiguous results were not analyzed further. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA (82% and 91%, respectively) were lower than those reported in 1995 (98% and 97%, respectively). The diagnostic efficiency was reduced from 97% to 86%. False ELISA-negative samples originated mainly (54%) from Switzerland (1995: 0%). Sixty-four false ELISA-negative samples were available for POCT (SNAPTM/WITNESSR): five were POCT-positive. FIV RT-PCR was positive for two of these samples and was weakly positive for two ELISA- and POCT-negative samples. Low viral loads prohibited sequencing. Our results suggest that FIV diagnosis has become more challenging, probably due to increasing travel by cats and the introduction of new FIV isolates not recognized by screening assays.

scholarly journals Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie L. Mitchell ◽  
Steven Orris ◽  
Tanner Freeman ◽  
Megan C. Freeman ◽  
Michelle Adam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Antigen Testing

Abstract Background Antigen testing offers rapid and inexpensive testing for SARS-CoV-2 but concerns regarding performance, especially sensitivity, remain. Limited data exists for use of antigen testing in asymptomatic patients; thus, performance and reliability of antigen testing remains unclear. Methods 148 symptomatic and 144 asymptomatic adults were included. A nasal swab was collected for testing by Quidel Sofia SARS IFA (Sofia) as point of care. A nasopharyngeal swab was also collected and transported to the laboratory for testing by Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV RT-PCR (Cepheid). Results Overall, Sofia had good agreement with Cepheid (> 95%) in adults, however was less sensitive. Sofia had a sensitivity of 87.8% and 33.3% for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively. Among symptomatic patients, testing > 5 days post symptom onset resulted in lower sensitivity (82%) when compared with testing within 5 days of symptom onset (90%). Of the four Sofia false-negative results in the asymptomatic cohort, 50% went on to develop COVID-19 disease within 5 days of testing. Specificity in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts was 100%. Conclusions Sofia has acceptable performance in symptomatic adults when tested < 5 days of symptom onset. Caution should be taken when testing patients with ≥ 5 days of symptoms. The combination of low prevalence and reduced sensitivity results in relatively poor performance of in asymptomatic patients. NAAT-based diagnostic assays should be considered in when antigen testing is unreliable, particularly in symptomatic patients with > 5 days of symptom onset and asymptomatic patients.

scholarly journals Evaluation of saliva molecular point of care for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Le Goff ◽  
Solen Kerneis ◽  
Caroline Elie ◽  
Severine Mercier Delarue ◽  
Nabil Gastli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Lamp Assay ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Antigen Testing

Background: The rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals is a cornerstone in strategies for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. Objectives and methods: We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) specifically designed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR as reference test, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Results: Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) were tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Sensitivities of saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen test were 93% (95% Confidence Interval (95%CI): 86-97) and 85% (95%CI: 77-91), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% (95%CI: 26-44) and 97% (95%CI: 96-98). The performance was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants and whatever the reference standard considered. Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p=0.028). Conclusion: In the ambulatory setting, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from crude saliva samples with the RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.

scholarly journals Concentration of the cellular material in the nasopharyngeal swabs increases the clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Kannian ◽  
Pasuvaraj Mahanathi ◽  
Veeraraghavan Ashwini
Keyword(s):  
Direct Method ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Direct Methods ◽  
N Gene ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Clinical Sensitivity ◽  
Concentration Method ◽  
Viral Transport Medium ◽  
Analytical Variable

SummarySevere acute respiratory syndrome - coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) is detected by a highly sensitive molecular method, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples collected in 2-3ml of viral transport medium (VTM). Unlike body fluids, NPS samples are undermined by high variability in the amount of cells that get suspended into the VTM. Hence, the cell density used for RNA extraction becomes an important analytical variable that contributes to the overall sensitivity of the RT-PCR. In this study, we compared the sensitivity of SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR in 50 NPS samples collected from in-patients of the COVID wards using the concentration and direct methods. The concentration method detected the viral RNA in all 50 samples, while the direct method was positive in only 41 (82%) samples (p=0.003). Additionally, the Ct values were lower in the direct method compared to concentration method among the 41 positive samples (p=0.03 for N gene and p=0.04 for RdRp gene). The mean CV% was also ≥10%. Thus, the concentration of the cells prior to RNA extraction drastically improves the sensitivity of detection of SARS-CoV2 in NPS samples.

scholarly journals CovidNudge: diagnostic accuracy of a novel lab-free point-of-care diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malick M Gibani ◽  
Christofer Toumazou ◽  
Mohammadreza Sohbati ◽  
Rashmita Sahoo ◽  
Maria Karvela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
N Gene ◽  
Hospital Inpatient ◽  
Standard Laboratory ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Viral Transport Medium ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Background Access to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of SARS-CoV-2. Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe the development and diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care RT-PCR test, the DnaNudge platform CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. Methods Nasopharyngeal swabs are inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as a positive control. Between April and May 2020, swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge direct-to-cartridge platform and standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium. Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred healthcare workers with suspected COVID-19 (Group 1, n=280/386; 73%); patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19 (Group 2, n=15/386; 4%) and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19 (Group 3, n=91/386; 23%). Results Of 386 paired samples tested across all groups, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The sensitivity of the test varied by group (Group 1 93% [84-98%], Group 2 100% [48-100%] and Group 3 100% [29-100%], giving an average sensitivity of 94.4% (95% confidence interval 86-98%) and an overall specificity of 100% (95%CI 99-100%; Group 1 100% [98-100%]; Group 2 100% [69-100%] and Group 3 100% [96-100%]). Point of care testing performance was comparable during a period of high (25%) and low (3%) background prevalence. Amplification of the viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, n3) targets were most sensitive for detection of SARS-CoV2, with the assay able to detect 1x104 viral particles in a single swab. Conclusions The CovidNudge platform offers a sensitive, specific and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The implementation of such a device could be used to enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programs.

scholarly journals Evaluation of saliva molecular point of care for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérôme LeGoff ◽  
Solen Kernéis ◽  
Caroline Elie ◽  
Séverine Mercier Delarue ◽  
Nabil Gastli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Lamp Assay ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Antigen Testing

Abstract Background Rapid identification of SARS-Cov-2 infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. Methods We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV™) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Results Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) were tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97% respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference test, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. Conclusion The detection of SARS-CoV-2 from crude saliva samples with a RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Registration number : NCT04578509

Scoring System for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 413-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Farouk Allam
Keyword(s):  
Scoring System ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Symptoms And Signs

Due to the international spread of COVID-19, the difficulty of collecting nasopharyngeal swab specimen from all suspected patients, the costs of RT-PCR and CT, and the false negative results of RT-PCR assay in 41% of COVID-19 patients, a scoring system is needed to classify the suspected patients in order to determine the need for follow-up, home isolation, quarantine or the conduction of further investigations. A scoring system is proposed as a diagnostic tool for suspected patients. It includes Epidemiological Evidence of Exposure, Clinical Symptoms and Signs, and Investigations (if available). This scoring system is simple, could be calculated in a few minutes, and incorporates the main possible data/findings of any patient.

scholarly journals Implementing SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in the Emergency Ward of a Swiss University Hospital: The INCREASE Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 798
Author(s):  
Giorgia Caruana ◽  
Antony Croxatto ◽  
Eleftheria Kampouri ◽  
Antonios Kritikos ◽  
Onya Opota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immunoglobulin A ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Emergency Ward ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Asymptomatic Subjects ◽  
Antigen Testing

Following the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) authorization of the rapid antigen test (RAT), we implemented the use of the RAT in the emergency ward of our university hospital for patients’ cohorting. RAT triaging in association with RT-PCR allowed us to promptly isolate positive patients and save resources. Among 532 patients, overall sensitivities were 48.3% for Exdia and 41.2% for Standard Q®, PanbioTM and BD Veritor™. All RATs exhibited specificity above 99%. Sensitivity increased to 74.6%, 66.2%, 66.2% and 64.8% for Exdia, Standard Q®, PanbioTM and BD Veritor™, respectively, for viral loads above 105 copies/mL, to 100%, 97.8%, 96.6% and 95.6% for viral loads above 106 copies/mL and 100% for viral loads above 107 copies/mL. Sensitivity was significantly higher for patients with symptoms onset within four days (74.3%, 69.2%, 69.2% and 64%, respectively) versus patients with the evolution of symptoms longer than four days (36.8%, 21.1%, 21.1% and 23.7%, respectively). Among COVID-19 asymptomatic patients, sensitivity was 33%. All Immunoglobulin-A-positive patients resulted negative for RAT. The RAT might represent a useful resource in selected clinical settings as a complementary tool in RT-PCR for rapid patient triaging, but the lower sensitivity, especially in late presenters and COVID-19 asymptomatic subjects, must be taken into account.

scholarly journals Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic kits in Pakistan: formulation of COVID-19 national testing strategy

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Umar Saeed ◽  
Sara Rizwan Uppal ◽  
Zahra Zahid Piracha ◽  
Azhar Rasheed ◽  
Zubair Aftab ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Injection Drug Users ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Negative Results

AbstractRapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 during pandemic enables timely treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of rapid diagnostic testing kits is crucial for surveillance and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections in general population, injection drug users, multi-transfused populations, healthcare workers, prisoners, barbers and other high risk populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate performance and effectiveness of nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva based rapid antigen detection testing kits in comparison with USFDA approved triple target gold standard real-time polymerase chain reaction. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 33,000 COVID-19 suspected patients. From RT-PCR positive patients, nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva samples were obtained for evaluation of rapid COVID-19 testing kits (RDT). 100/33,000 (0.3%) of specimens were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among RT-PCR positive, 62% were males, 34% were females, and 4% were children. The NSP-RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis revealed 53% reactivity among males, 58% reactivity among females, and 25% reactivity among children. However saliva based RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis showed 21% reactivity among males and 23% among females, and no reactivity in children. False negative results were significantly more pronounced in saliva based RDT as compared to NSP-RDT. The sensitivity of these NSP-RDT and saliva based RDT were 52% and 21% respectively. The RDTs evaluated in this study showed limited sensitivities in comparison to gold standard RT-PCR, indicating that there is a dire need in Pakistan for development of suitable testing to improve accurate COVID-19 diagnosis in line with national demands.

scholarly journals Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 363
Author(s):  
Vânia M. Moreira ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Nucleic Acid Assays

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0–98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4–88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5–98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3–95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3–96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8–89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document