Characteristics of patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and repeatedly negative RT-PCR

Objectives. Challenges remain and there are still a sufficient number of cases with epidemiological, clinical features and radiological data suggestive of COVID-19 pneumonia that persist negative in their RT-PCR results. The aim of the study was to define the distinguishing characteristics between patients developing a serological response to SARS-CoV-2 and those who did not. Methods. RT-PCR tests used were TaqPath 2019-nCoV Assay Kit v1 (ORF-1ab, N and S genes) from Thermo Fisher Diagnostics and SARS-COV-2 Kit (N and E genes) from Vircell. Serological response was tested using the rapid SARS-CoV2 IgG/IgM Test Cassette from T and D Diagnostics Canada and CMC Medical Devices and Drugs, S.L, CE. Results. In this cross-sectional study, we included a cohort of 52 patients recruited from 31 March 2020 to 23 April 2020. Patients with positive serology had an older average age (73.29) compared to those who were negative (54.82) (P<0.05). Sat02 in 27 of 34 patients with positive serology were below 94% (P<0.05). There was a frequency of 1.5% negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs during the study period concurring with 36.7% of positivity. Conclusions. Clinical features and other biomarkers in a context of a positive serology can be considered crucial for diagnosis.

Diagnostic performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): a prospective observational study with 1,127 nasopharyngeal samples

Introduction: Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. Methods: We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and RT-PCR. Real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, using a method developed by the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan, served as the reference RT-PCR method. Results: During the study period, 1,127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%-87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%-98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%-81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%-99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%-96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%-93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively. Conclusions: The findings indicated that RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2 analysis with the DIA device had sufficient analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples. When positive DIA results are recorded without a visually recognizable red line at the positive line location on the test cassette, additional RT-PCR evaluation should be performed.

Accuracy of four lateral flow immunoassays for anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a head-to-head comparative study

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for population surveillance and might have a future role in individual risk assessment. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver results rapidly and at scale, but have widely varying accuracy.MethodsIn a laboratory setting, we performed head-to-head comparisons of four LFIAs: the Rapid Test Consortium’s AbC-19™ Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test. We analysed blood samples from 2,847 key workers and 1,995 pre-pandemic blood donors with all four devices.FindingsWe observed a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity: the IgG band of the SureScreen device and the AbC-19™ device had higher specificities but OrientGene and Biomerica higher sensitivities. Based on analysis of pre-pandemic samples, SureScreen IgG band had the highest specificity (98.9%, 95% confidence interval 98.3 to 99.3%), which translated to the highest positive predictive value across any pre-test probability: for example, 95.1% (95%CI 92.6, 96.8%) at 20% pre-test probability. All four devices showed higher sensitivity at higher antibody concentrations (“spectrum effects”), but the extent of this varied by device.InterpretationThe estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be used to adjust for test error rates when using these devices to estimate the prevalence of antibody. If tests were used to determine whether an individual has SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in an example scenario in which 20% of individuals have antibodies we estimate around 5% of positive results on the most specific device would be false positives.FundingPublic Health England.Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched for evidence on the accuracy of the four devices compared in this study: OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19™ Rapid Test Cassette, Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test and the UK Rapid Test Consortium’s AbC-19™ Rapid Test. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily), PubMed, MedRxiv/BioRxiv and Google Scholar from January 2020 to 16th January 2021. Search terms included device names AND ((SARS-CoV-2) OR (covid)). Of 303 records assessed, data were extracted from 24 studies: 18 reporting on the accuracy of the OrientGene device, 7 SureScreen, 2 AbC-19™ and 1 Biomerica. Only three studies compared the accuracy of two or more of the four devices. With the exception of our previous report on the accuracy of the AbC-19™ device, which the current manuscript builds upon, sample size ranged from 7 to 684. For details, see Supplementary Materials.The largest study compared OrientGene, SureScreen and Biomerica. SureScreen was estimated to have the highest specificity (99.8%, 95% CI 98.9 to 100%) and OrientGene the highest sensitivity (92.6%), but with uncertainty about the latter result due to small sample sizes. The other two comparative studies were small (n = 65, n = 67) and therefore provide very uncertain results.We previously observed spectrum effects for the AbC-19™ device, such that sensitivity is upwardly biased if estimated only from PCR-confirmed cases. The vast majority of previous studies estimated sensitivity in this way.Added value of this studyWe performed a large scale (n = 4,842), head-to-head laboratory-based evaluation and comparison of four lateral flow devices, which were selected for evaluation by the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s New Tests Advisory Group, on the basis of a survey of test and performance data available. We evaluated the performance of diagnosis based on both IgG and IgM bands, and the IgG band alone. We found a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity across devices, with the SureScreen and AbC-19™ devices being more specific and OrientGene and Biomerica more sensitive. Based on analysis of 1,995 pre-pandemic blood samples, we are 99% confident that SureScreen (IgG band reading) has the highest specificity of the four devices (98.9%, 95% CI 98.3, 99.3%).We found evidence that all four devices have reduced sensitivity at lower antibody indices, i.e. spectrum effects. However, the extent of this varies by device and appears to be less for other devices than for AbC-19.Our estimates of sensitivity and specificity are likely to be higher than would be observed in real use of these devices, as they were based on majority readings of three trained laboratory personnel.Implications of all the available evidenceWhen used in epidemiological studies of antibody prevalence, the estimates of sensitivity and specificity provided in this study can be used to adjust for test errors. Increased precision in error rates will translate to increased precision in seroprevalence estimates. If lateral flow devices were used for individual risk assessment, devices with maximum specificity would be preferable. However, if, for an example, 20% of the tested population had antibodies, we estimate that around 1 in 20 positive results on the most specific device would be incorrect.

Evaluation of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test from Orient Gene Biotech

ABSTRACT While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has peaked in many countries already, the current challenge is to assess population immunity on a large scale. Many serological tests are available and require urgent independent validation. Here, we report performance characteristics of Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (OG) and compare it to Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassay (ASIA). Patients (n = 102) with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) were tested. The patients were asymptomatic (n = 2) or had mild (n = 37) or severe symptoms requiring hospitalization in a medical unit (n = 35) or intensive care unit (n = 28). Specificity was evaluated for 42 patients with previous viral and parasitic diseases as well as a high level of rheumatic factor. The sensitivity of OG was 95.8% (95% confidence interval [CI95%], 89.6 to 98.8) for samples collected ≥10 days after the onset of symptoms, which was equivalent to the sensitivity of ASIA of 90.5% (CI95%, 82.8 to 95.6). OG uncovered six false-negative results of ASIA, of which two had only IgM with OG. Specificity was 100% (CI95%, 93.4 to 100) with both tests on samples, including patients infected with endemic coronavirus. Overall, OG performance characteristics indicate that the test is suitable for routine use in clinical laboratories, and its performance is equivalent to that of immunoassay. Testing OG on a larger asymptomatic population may be needed to confirm these results.

System Accuracy and User Performance Evaluation of an Improved System for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose

An improved test cassette for the integrated Accu-Chek® Mobile system (Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) has been developed. System accuracy of this improved system was evaluated based on ISO 15197:2013, clause 6.3, for three reagent system lots. According to this standard, at least 95% of the system’s measurement results shall be within ±15 mg/dL and ±15% of the results of the comparison method at glucose concentrations <100 mg/dL and ≥100 mg/dL (accuracy criterion A), respectively, and at least 99% of results shall be within consensus error grid zones A and B (accuracy criterion B). In addition, accuracy was evaluated in the hands of users based on ISO 15197:2013, clause 8, with one reagent system lot.

Point-of-care diagnosis and risk factors of infantile, rotavirus-associated diarrhoea in Calabar, Nigeria

Background: Rotaviruses are the primary cause of acute gastroenteritis in young children worldwide and a significant proportion of these infections occur in Africa.Objectives: In the present study, we determined the prevalence and risk factors of rotavirus infection among children younger than age 5 years with or without diarrhoea in Calabar, Nigeria, using a rapid point-of-care test.Methods: Two hundred infants younger than age 5 years presenting with acute gastroenteritis and a control group of 200 infants without diarrhoea were tested for rotavirus. Each stool sample was homogenised in an extraction buffer and the supernatant added into the sample well of the Rida Quick rotavirus test cassette and allowed to run for 5 minutes at room temperature. When both the control band and test band were visible on the test cassette a positive result was recorded, whereas when only the control band was visible a negative results was recorded.Results: Rotavirus was detected in 25 (12.5%) of children with diarrhoea and in no children without diarrhoea. Our results demonstrated that children who were exclusively breast-fed by their mothers were not infected with rotavirus and that 92% of the infants infected with rotavirus experienced vomiting.Conclusion: These data demonstrate that asymptomatic rotavirus infection is rare and that rotavirus is commonly detected in stool samples of children suffering from diarrhoea with concomitant vomiting. Use of point-of-care rotavirus tests will enhance early diagnosis of rotavirus-associated diarrhoea and reduce irrational use of antibiotics.

KEJADIAN INFEKSI HEPATITIS B PADA BAYI DAN ANAK YANG DILAHIRKAN OLEH IBU DENGAN HBSAG POSITIF DI KABUPATEN MAGELANG JAWA TENGAH TAHUN 2014-2016

PurposeThis study aimed to examine the prevalence rate of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection in infants aged more than 9 months born to HbsAg-positive mothers as well as the distribution of the cases in Magelang Regency for the years 2014-2016.Method The study used a survey approach with total sampling. The sample of this research consisted of infants aged more than 9 months born to HBsAG-positive mothers diagnosed from laboratory examination (Rapid Diagnostic Test) based on the report from the Health Office of Magelang Regency for the years 2014-2016. The method of analysis used was descriptive. The HBsAg of the sample was examined using HBsAg Rapid Test Cassette and confirmed using Enzyme-Linked Fluorescence Assay (ELFA) methods at a laboratory.Results The prevalence rate of Hepatitis B virus infection in infants born to HBsAG-positive mothers in Magelang Regency was 0 percent (0/61). The history of the administration of HB0 vaccine <12 hours to respondents reached 100 percent and the history of the administration of HBIg <12 hours was 68.85 percent. The history of respondents’ caesarean delivery was 37.7 percent. The history of therapy of respondents was by giving curcuma and Java ginger (temulawak). The price of HBIg is relatively expensive Rp. 1,000,000 – Rp. 4,999,999.ConclusionThis study concludes that there was no vertical transmission with 100 percent history of the administration of HB0 vaccine.