Analysis of the tendency of development of biosensors based on GaN

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.I. Agasieva ◽  
E.A. Smetanin ◽  
A.R. Vechkanov ◽  
A.V. Gubanov
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Clinical Analysis ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Economic Damage ◽  
Disease Research ◽  
Local Healthcare

Statement of the problem of this article - one of the most important problems is protection from especially dangerous infectious diseases. The use of biosensors in clinical trials will significantly reduce the time for obtaining the results of analyzes, thereby speeding up the appointment of treatment to patients. The purpose of the article is to present modern designs of biosensors based on gallium nitride, the possibilities of their application and characteristics. Consider the principles of operation, areas of application and characteristics. As a result, the design of modern biosensors and modern trends in their use from various sources of literature in recent years are shown. Biosensors, principles of their action, areas of application and characteristics are considered, which will reduce the possible socio-economic damage from temporary disability for sick citizens due to the rapid and timely implementation of anti-epidemic measures. Practical value: the proposed biosensors are of interest as devices for detecting diseases. The use of biosensors in clinical disease research has several potential advantages over other clinical analysis methods, including increased analysis speed and flexibility, multipurpose analysis capability, automation, reduced diagnostic testing costs, and the ability to integrate molecular diagnostic tests into local healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Serologic Testing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly E Hanson ◽  
Angela M Caliendo ◽  
Cesar A Arias ◽  
Janet A Englund ◽  
Mary K Hayden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Past Infection ◽  
Serologic Tests ◽  
Serologic Testing ◽  
Grade Methodology

Abstract Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations, and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development, and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 8 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests is rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified 3 potential indications for serologic testing, including (1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and ≥2 weeks have passed since symptom onset, (2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and (3) conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.

scholarly journals Intensivists’ beliefs about rapid multiplex molecular diagnostic testing and its potential role in improving prescribing decisions and antimicrobial stewardship: a qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyssa M. Pandolfo ◽  
Robert Horne ◽  
Yogini Jani ◽  
Tom W. Reader ◽  
Natalie Bidad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Diagnostics ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Pathogenic Bacteria ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Structured Interviews

Abstract Background Rapid molecular diagnostic tests to investigate the microbial aetiology of pneumonias may improve treatment and antimicrobial stewardship in intensive care units (ICUs). Clinicians’ endorsement and uptake of these tests is crucial to maximise engagement; however, adoption may be impeded if users harbour unaddressed concerns or if device usage is incompatible with local practice. Accordingly, we strove to identify ICU clinicians’ beliefs about molecular diagnostic tests for pneumonias before implementation at the point-of-care. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 critical care doctors working in four ICUs in the United Kingdom. A clinical vignette depicting a fictitious patient with signs of pneumonia was used to explore clinicians’ beliefs about the importance of molecular diagnostics and their concerns. Data were analysed thematically. Results Clinicians’ beliefs about molecular tests could be grouped into two categories: perceived potential of molecular diagnostics to improve antibiotic prescribing (Molecular Diagnostic Necessity) and concerns about how the test results could be implemented into practice (Molecular Diagnostic Concerns). Molecular Diagnostic Necessity stemmed from beliefs that positive results would facilitate targeted antimicrobial therapy; that negative results would signal the absence of a pathogen, and consequently that having the molecular diagnostic results would bolster clinicians’ prescribing confidence. Molecular Diagnostic Concerns included unfamiliarity with the device’s capabilities, worry that it would detect non-pathogenic bacteria, uncertainty whether it would fail to detect pathogens, and discomfort with withholding antibiotics until receiving molecular test results. Conclusions Clinicians believed rapid molecular diagnostics for pneumonias were potentially important and were open to using them; however, they harboured concerns about the tests’ capabilities and integration into clinical practice. Implementation strategies should bolster users’ necessity beliefs while reducing their concerns; this can be accomplished by publicising the tests’ purpose and benefits, identifying and addressing clinicians’ misconceptions, establishing a trial period for first-hand familiarisation, and emphasising that, with a swift (e.g., 60–90 min) test, antibiotics can be started and refined after molecular diagnostic results become available.

scholarly journals Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies via rapid diagnostic immunoassays in COVID-19 patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jira Chansaenroj ◽  
Ritthideach Yorsaeng ◽  
Nawarat Posuwan ◽  
Jiratchaya Puenpa ◽  
Natthinee Sudhinaraset ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Monitoring And Control ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Seropositivity Rate ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background Efficient monitoring and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) require access to diagnostic tests, and serological diagnostic testing is desirable. In the current study, antibodies were investigated in patients recently diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Methods Cross-sectional data were obtained from 245 patients in whom SARS-CoV-2 infection had been confirmed via real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between March and October 2020. Serum samples were acquired between 2 and 60 days following the onset of COVID-19 symptoms or the first detection of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients. All specimens were tested simultaneously using an IgM/IgG rapid diagnostic test (RDT), IgG nucleocapsid protein-based chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), IgG, and IgA spike protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Blood donor samples obtained in 2018 were used as negative controls. Results The sensitivity and specificity of the RDT IgG were compared with the IgG immunoassays as standards. The RDT IgG exhibited 97.5% sensitivity and 89.4% specificity compared with a CMIA IgG, 98.4% sensitivity, and 78.8% specificity compared with an ELISA IgG. IgM, IgG, and IgA seropositivity rates were low between 1 and 2 weeks after COVID-19 symptom onset or the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. IgM seropositivity rate began decreasing after 4 weeks, whereas IgG and IgA seropositivity rate remained at appreciable levels over the 8-week study period. No cross-reactivity with seasonal coronaviruses was detected. Conclusions IgG RDT alone or combined with molecular diagnostic tests may be useful for identifying recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

scholarly journals Influence of viral transport media and freeze-thaw cycling on the sensitivity of qRT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids

Nanoscale ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cian Holohan ◽  
Sophia Hanrahan ◽  
Nathan Feely ◽  
Peng Li ◽  
John O'Connell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Nucleic Acids ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Pcr Detection ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Freeze Thaw ◽  
Qrt Pcr ◽  
Viral Transport ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic Testing

Objective The events of the last year have highlighted the complexity of implementing molecular diagnostic testing for infectious diseases at a large scale. The purpose of this study was to...

scholarly journals Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies via rapid diagnostic immunoassays in COVID-19 patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jira Chansaenroj ◽  
Ritthideach Yorsaeng ◽  
Nawarat Posuwan ◽  
Jiratchaya Puenpa ◽  
Natthinee Sudhinaraset ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Monitoring And Control ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Seropositivity Rate ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: Efficient monitoring and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) require access to diagnostic tests, and serological diagnostic testing is desirable. In the current study, antibodies were investigated in patients recently diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.Methods: Cross-sectional data were obtained from 245 patients in whom SARS-CoV-2 infection had been confirmed via real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between March and October 2020. Serum samples were acquired between 2 and 60 days following the onset of COVID-19 symptoms or the first detection of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients. All specimens were tested simultaneously using an IgM/IgG rapid diagnostic test (RDT), IgG nucleocapsid protein-based chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), IgG, and IgA spike protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Blood donor samples obtained in 2018 were used as negative controls. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the RDT IgG were compared with the IgG immunoassays as standards. The RDT IgG exhibited 97.5% sensitivity and 89.4% specificity compared with a CMIA IgG, 98.4% sensitivity, and 78.8% specificity compared with an ELISA IgG. IgM, IgG, and IgA seropositivity rates were low between 1-2 weeks after COVID-19 symptom onset or the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. IgM seropositivity rate began decreasing after 4 weeks, whereas IgG and IgA seropositivity rate remained at appreciable levels over the 8-week study period. No cross-reactivity with seasonal coronaviruses was detected.Conclusions: IgM/IgG RDTs alone or combined with molecular diagnostic tests may be useful for identifying recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

scholarly journals Implementation of infectious diseases rapid molecular diagnostic tests and antimicrobial stewardship program involvement in acute-care hospitals

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Maiko Kondo ◽  
Matthew S. Simon ◽  
Lars F. Westblade ◽  
Stephen G. Jenkins ◽  
N. Esther Babady ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship Program ◽  
Stewardship Program ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Program Involvement

Abstract A survey of acute-care hospitals found that rapid molecular diagnostic tests (RMDTs) have been widely adopted. Although many hospitals use their antimicrobial stewardship team and/or guidelines to help clinicians interpret results and optimize treatment, opportunities to more fully achieve the potential benefits of RMDTs remain.

scholarly journals Clinical Performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza AB for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasal Samples

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusaku Akashi ◽  
Michiko Horie ◽  
Junichi Kiyotaki ◽  
Yuto Takeuchi ◽  
Kenichi Togashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Concordance Rate ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Molecular Assays ◽  
High Concordance

Background and Objective: Point-of-care type molecular diagnostic tests have been used for detecting SARS-CoV-2, although their clinical utility with nasal samples has yet to be established. This study evaluated the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza AB (Liat) in nasal samples. Methods: Nasal and nasopharyngeal samples were collected and were tested using the Liat, the cobas 6800 system and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza AB (cobas), and a method developed by National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan (NIID). Results: A total of 814 nasal samples were collected. The Liat assay was positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 113 (13.9%). The total, positive, and negative concordance rate between the Liat and cobas/NIID assays were 99.3%/98.4%, 99.1%/100%, and 99.3%/98.2%, respectively. Five samples were positive only using the Liat assay. Their Ct values ranged from 31.9 to 37.2. The Ct values of the Liat assay were significantly lower (p < 0.001) but were correlated (p < 0.001) with those of other molecular assays. In the participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the Liat assay using nasopharyngeal samples, 88.2% of their nasal samples also tested positive using the Liat assay. Conclusion: The Liat assay showed high concordance with other molecular assays in nasal samples. Some discordance occurred in samples with Ct values > 30 on the Liat assay.

scholarly journals Barriers to the Use of Personalized Medicine in Breast Cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. e24-e31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Julia R. Trosman ◽  
William J. Gradishar ◽  
Al B. Benson ◽  
Julian C. Schink
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Personalized Medicine ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic

Poorly coordinated diagnostic testing and the current oncology reimbursement model are barriers to the use of genomic and molecular diagnostic tests in cancer care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document