Position statement: nutrition options when reducing saturated fat intake.

J. Mann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.1992.10737991

1992-06-01

Journal of the American College of Nutrition

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Assessment Of The Diagnostic Ability Of Four Detection Methods Using Three Sample Types Of Covid-19 Patients

Fei Yu,Guoliang Xie,Shufa Zheng,Dongsheng Han,Jiaqi Bao,Dan Zhang,Baihuan Feng,Qi Wang,Qianda Zou,Ruonan Wang,Xianzhi Yang,Weizhen Chen,Bin Lou,Yu Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.685640

IF: 6.073

2021-01-01

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology

Abstract:Background Viral nucleic acid detection is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, unsuitable sample types and laboratory detection kits/methods lead to misdiagnosis, which delays the prevention and control of the pandemic. Methods We compared four nucleic acid detection methods [two kinds of reverse transcription polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCR A: ORF1ab and N testing; RT-PCRB: only ORF1ab testing), reverse transcription recombinase aided amplification (RT-RAA) and droplet digital RT-PCR (dd-RT-PCR)] using 404 samples of 72 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, including oropharyngeal swab (OPS), nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and saliva after deep cough, to evaluate the best sample type and method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Results Among the four methods, dd-RT-PCR exhibited the highest positivity rate (93.0%), followed by RT-PCR B (91.2%) and RT-RAA (91.2%), while the positivity rate of RT-PCR A was only 71.9%. The viral load in OPS [24.90 copies/test (IQR 15.58-129.85)] was significantly lower than that in saliva [292.30 copies/test (IQR 20.20-8628.55)] and NPS [274.40 copies/test (IQR 33.10-2836.45)]. In addition, if OPS samples were tested alone by RT-PCR A, only 21.4% of the COVID-19 patients would be considered positive. The accuracy of all methods reached nearly 100% when saliva and NPS samples from the same patient were tested simultaneously. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection methods should be fully evaluated before use. High-positivity rate methods such as RT-RAA and dd-RT-PCR should be considered when possible. Furthermore, saliva after deep cough and NPS can greatly improve the accuracy of the diagnosis, and testing OPS alone is not recommended.
Diagnostic Performance and Tolerability of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR

Jaakko Ahti,Riikka Österback,Anniina Keskitalo,Kati Mokkala,Siina Vidbäck,Ville Veikkolainen,Tytti Vuorinen,Ville Peltola,Antti J Hakanen,Matti Waris,Miia Laine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.05324-22

2023-06-15

Abstract:Saliva is a promising alternative for a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in specimen collection to detect SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic performance and tolerability of saliva collection versus NPS in a clinical setting. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected sequentially from participants (n = 250) at the Turku University Hospital drive-in coronavirus testing station in the spring of 2022, with Omicron BA.2 as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant. Discomfort and preference for the sampling method were assessed. The specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) with a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial kits (PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 and PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 Plus) for several target genes. Among the 250 participants, 246 had respiratory symptoms. With LDT, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 135 and 134 participants from NPS and saliva, respectively. Of the 250 specimens, 11 gave a discordant outcome, resulting in excellent agreement between the specimen types (Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.911; P = 0.763). The cycle threshold (CT) values of LDT and commercial kit target genes were significantly lower from NPS than from saliva. A total of 172 (69%) participants assessed saliva sampling as more tolerable than NPS (P < 0.0001). Our findings present saliva as an applicable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the lower CT values obtained from NPS indicate that NPS may be a slightly more sensitive specimen type. Participants preferred saliva sampling, although delivering an adequate volume of saliva was challenging for some participants. IMPORTANCE The extensive testing of SARS-CoV-2 is vital in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The reference standard for specimen collection is a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, the discomfort of NPS sampling, the risk of nosocomial infections, and global material shortages have accelerated the development of alternative testing methods. Our study demonstrates that patients tolerate saliva sampling better than NPS. Of importance, although the RT-PCR qualitative test results seem to correspond between NPS and saliva, we show significantly lower CT values for NPS, compared to saliva, thus contradicting the suggested superiority of the saliva specimen over NPS in the detection of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Future research is still required to enable individual planning for specimen collection and to determine the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the sensitivity of the saliva matrix.
Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Test Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 17,171 Suspected COVID-19 Patients

Shahad Saif Khandker,Nik Haszroel Hysham Nik Hashim,Zakuan Zainy Deris,Rafidah Hanim Shueb,Md Asiful Islam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163493

IF: 3.9

2021-08-08

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Early diagnosis is still as crucial as the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. As RT-PCR sometimes is not feasible in developing nations or rural areas, health professionals may use a rapid antigen test (RAT) to lessen the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated thoroughly. Hence, we tried to evaluate the overall performance of RAT in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Based on our PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42021231432), we searched online databases (i.e., PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) and analysed overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT along with study quality, publication bias, heterogeneity and more. The overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT were detected as 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1–99.8; I2 = 90%) and 68.4% (95% CI: 60.8–75.9; I2 = 98%), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasopharyngeal specimens and symptomatic patient’s samples were more sensitive in RAT, while cycle threshold (Ct) values were found to have an inverse relationship with sensitivity. In the European and American populations, RAT showed better performance. Although the sensitivity of RAT is yet to be improved, it could still be an alternative in places with poor laboratory set up. Nevertheless, the negative samples of RAT can be re-tested using RT-PCR to reduce false negative results.

medicine, general & internal
Morphogenesis at the retrotransposon-retrovirus interface: gypsy and copia families in yeast and Drosophila.

S. Sandmeyer,T. Menees

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-80145-7_9

Current topics in microbiology and immunology

Abstract:
Analysis of factors associated early diagnosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Jinwei Ai,Junyan Gong,Limin Xing,Renjiao He,Fangtao Tian,Juan Wang,Jun Wang,Shengduo Polo Pei,Dongxuan Chen,Guoxin Huang,Meiling Zhang,Gaojing Qu,Wufeng Fan,Hongming Lin,Desheng Li,Bin Pei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.09.20059352

2020-01-01

MedRxiv

Abstract:Background The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become the first concern in international affairs as the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is spreading all over the world at a terrific speed. The accuracy of early diagnosis is critical in the control of the spread of the virus. Although the real-time RT-PCR detection of the virus nucleic acid is the current golden diagnostic standard, it has high false negative rate when only apply single test. Objective Summarize the baseline characteristics and laboratory examination results of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Analyze the factors that could interfere with the early diagnosis quantitatively to support the timely confirmation of the disease. Methods All suspected patients with COVID-19 were included in our study until Feb 9th, 2020. The last day of follow-up was Mar 20th, 2020. Throat swab real-time RT-PCR test was used to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection. The difference between the epidemiological profile and first laboratory examination results of COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients were compared and analyzed by multiple logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were used to assess the potential diagnostic value in factors, which had statistical differences in regression analysis. Results In total, 315 hospitalized patients were included. Among them, 108 were confirmed as COVID-19 patients and 207 were non-COVID-19 patients. Two groups of patients have significance in comparing age, contact history, leukocyte count, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p<0.10). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed age, contact history and decreasing lymphocyte count could be used as individual factor that has diagnostic value (p<0.05). The AUC of first RT-PCR test was 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), AUC of cumulative two times of RT-PCR tests was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.99) for cumulative three times of RT-PCR tests. Ninety-six patients showed typical pneumonia radiological features in first CT scan, AUC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.73). The AUC of patients age, contact history with confirmed people and the decreased lymphocytes were 0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.73), 0.67 (95% CI 0.61-0.73), 0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.69), respectively. Taking chest CT scan diagnosis together with patients age and decreasing lymphocytes, AUC would be 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.90). The age threshold to predict COVID-19 was 41.5 years, with a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.61-0.79) and a specificity of 0.59 (95% CI 0.52-0.66). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.71 and 0.50, respectively. Threshold of lymphocyte count to diagnose COVID-19 was 1.53x109/L, with a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) and a specificity of 0.50 (95% CI 0.43-0.57). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.64 and 0.37, respectively. Conclusion Single RT-PCR test has relatively high false negative rate. When first RT-PCR test show negative result in suspected patients, the chest CT scan, contact history, age and lymphocyte count should be used combinedly to assess the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications

Frank T. Aboagye,Lawrence Annison,Henry Kwadwo Hackman,Maame E. Acquah,Yvonne Ashong,Isaac Owusu-Frimpong,Bill C. Egyam,Sharon Annison,George Osei-Adjei,Samuel Antwi-Baffour

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00073-24

IF: 3.7

2024-04-30

Microbiology Spectrum

Abstract:ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical need for accurate and efficient diagnostic tools for detecting severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. This study presents a comparison of two diagnostic tests: RT-PCR and antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). This study focused on their performance, variant specificity, and their clinical implications. A simultaneous testing of 268 samples was carried out for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs [flourescence immunoassay (FIA) and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA)]. Viral load was quantified, and variant identification was performed using a PCR-based assay. The prevalence was found to be 30.2% using reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), 26.5% using FIA, and 25% using LFIA. When comparing the FIA and LFIA, the overall diagnostic performance was found to be 80.25% vs 76.54%, 96.79% vs 97.33%, 91.55% vs 90.51%, and 91.88% vs 92.56% for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), respectively. Both Ag-RDTs showed a strong agreement with RT-PCR (κ = 0.78–0.80). The overall accuracies of the FIA and LFIA were 92.41% and 92.13%, respectively. The FIA showed higher sensitivity (73.68%) and PPV (92.08%) than the LFIA (65.79% and 90.56%, respectively) in asymptomatic patients. At low Ct values ( 30. The diagnostic sensitivity of FIA compared to LFIA for detecting the Alpha variant was 78.85% vs. 69.23% and 72.22% vs. 83.33% for the Delta variant. Both Ag-RDTs had 100% sensitivity for detecting Omicron. Both Ag-RDTs performed well in patients with high viral loads and Omicron variant infections compared to those infected with Alpha and Delta variants. This study confirms the comparable performance of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs, specifically FIA and LFIA, for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The FIA showed higher sensitivity and PPV in asymptomatic cases, while both Ag-RDTs exhibited strong agreement with RT-PCR results. Notably, Ag-RDTs, particularly FIA, proved effective in detecting the Omicron variant and cases with high viral loads, highlighting their potential clinical utility in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPORTANCE This study is of utmost importance in providing effective responses to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. It rigorously compares the diagnostic accuracy, variant specificity, and practical considerations of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), answering critical questions. The results of this study will help healthcare professionals choose the appropriate testing methods, allocate resources effectively, and enhance public health strategies. Given the evolution of the virus, understanding the performance of these diagnostic tools is crucial to adapting to emerging variants. Additionally, the study provides insights into logistical challenges and accessibility issues, which will contribute to refining testing workflows, particularly in resource-limited settings. Ultimately, the study’s impact extends to global healthcare, providing valuable information for policymakers, clinicians, and public health officials as they work together for mitigating the impact of the pandemic.

microbiology
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ellyn Hirabayashi,Guadalupe Mercado,Brandi Hull,Sabrina Soin,Sherli Koshy-Chenthittayil,Sarina Raman,Timothy Huang,Chathushya Keerthisinghe,Shelby Feliciano,Andrew Dongo,James Kal,Azliyati Azizan,Karen Duus,Terry Else,Megan DeArmond,Amy E L Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00291

2024-08-26

Abstract:Objective: The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults. Introduction: Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR. Inclusion criteria: Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed. Methods: The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases . Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers. Results: Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individuals who have COVID-19 with high reliability (positive predictive value 97.7%; negative predictive value 95.2%) when considering overall performance. However, the lower level of sensitivity (67.1%) suggests that negative test results likely need to be retested through an additional method. Conclusions: Most reported RAT brands had only a few studies comparing their performance with RT-PCR. Overall, a positive RAT result is an excellent predictor of a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. We recommend that Roche's SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and Abbott's BinaxNOW tests be used in primary care settings, with the understanding that negative results need to be confirmed through RT-PCR. We recommend adherence to the STARD guidelines when reporting on diagnostic data. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020224250.
Performance of Self-Performed SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peiling Cai,Junren Wang,Peng Ye,Yarong Zhang,Mengping Wang,Ronglian Guo,Hongying Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1402949

IF: 5.2

2024-01-01

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of self-tested SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests.MethodsDatabases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for original studies investigating accuracy of self-tested SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests, with RT-PCR as “gold standard.”ResultsForty-five eligible studies were found after database searching and screening using pre-defined criteria. The accuracy results from 50,897 suspected COVID-19 patients were pooled, and the overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.77, 1.00, and 625.95, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed higher sensitivity of rapid antigen tests in subgroups of Abbott Panbio, self-collected nasal swab samples, and use of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab and lower Ct cutoff value in RT-PCR.ConclusionFully self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests showed overall high accuracy compared to “gold standard,” and are reliable surrogates for the standard test of COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal samples and RT-PCR.
Clinical sensitivity and interpretation of PCR and serological COVID‐19 diagnostics for patients presenting to the hospital

Tyler E. Miller,Wilfredo F. Garcia Beltran,Adam Z. Bard,Tasos Gogakos,Melis N. Anahtar,Michael Gerino Astudillo,Diane Yang,Julia Thierauf,Adam S. Fisch,Grace K. Mahowald,Megan J. Fitzpatrick,Valentina Nardi,Jared Feldman,Blake M. Hauser,Timothy M. Caradonna,Hetal D. Marble,Lauren L. Ritterhouse,Sara E. Turbett,Julie Batten,Nicholas Zeke Georgantas,Galit Alter,Aaron G. Schmidt,Jason B. Harris,Jeffrey A. Gelfand,Mark C. Poznansky,Bradley E. Bernstein,David N. Louis,Anand Dighe,Richelle C. Charles,Edward T. Ryan,John A. Branda,Virginia M. Pierce,Mandakolathur R. Murali,A. John Iafrate,Eric S. Rosenberg,Jochen K. Lennerz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.202001700rr

2020-08-28

The FASEB Journal

Abstract:The diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%-71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR-positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time-dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.
RT- PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Between justification and overestimation, a multi-center international study

Noha M Hammad,Maysaa A Saeed,Shaker Wagih Shaltout,Hanaa A Nofal,Ramadan M Nafae,Kadem Arslan,Alpaslan Tanoglu,Mihai Nechifor,Catalina Luca,Zaid Hashim Ali Al-Kadhim,Ahmed Mosallem,Fatma A Amer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102334

Abstract:Background: It has been found that patients recovered from COVID 19 may still test Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT- PCR) positive without being infectious; the reasons are unclear. The occurrence of false-negative results of RT- PCR interferes with a proper diagnosis. The objectives of that work were to determine factors associated with persistently detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA among recovered hospitalized patients and to determine the incidence of false-negative RT-PCR results and associated factors. Methods: Relevant data were collected from 482 COVID 19 patients hospitalized in six referral centers from four countries. Results: The median duration of RT- PCR conversion to negative was 20 days. Out of 482 studied patients, 8.7% tested positive after more than four weeks and were considered prolonged convertors. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed headache as an independent risk factor for short conversion time while fever, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and the number of lobes affected, and bilateralism were found to be independent risk factors for prolonged positivity. Eighteen patients had initial negative results then turned positive after 24-48 h. Associated factors and outcomes were identified. Conclusion: Identifying patients with a high likelihood of COVID-19 despite a negative RT-PCR is critical for effective clinical care. However, patient isolation resumption depending on positive RT-PCR despite clinical and radiological recovery is an overrating that greatly burdens the health sector.
Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

Mayara Lisboa Bastos,Gamuchirai Tavaziva,Syed Kunal Abidi,Jonathon R Campbell,Louis-Patrick Haraoui,James C Johnston,Zhiyi Lan,Stephanie Law,Emily MacLean,Anete Trajman,Dick Menzies,Andrea Benedetti,Faiz Ahmad Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2516

2020-07-01

BMJ

Abstract:Abstract Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19. Eligibility criteria and data analysis Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset. Results 5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%). Conclusion Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42020179452.

English Else
Conventional Naso-Oropharyngeal Sampling Versus Self-Collected Saliva Samples in COVID-19 Testing

Vijay Bidkar,Meena Mishra,Neeta Gade,Kalaiselvi Selvaraj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-021-02571-3

2021-04-26

Abstract:Comparing the diagnostic utility of salivary specimen samples with conventional nasopharynx-oropharynx (NP-OP) specimen samples to identify COVID-19 cases by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Eighty COVID-19 suspects enrolled for the paired sampling. In addition to conventional sampling, suspects were asked to follow stepwise pictorial instructions for self salivary sampling. Separate nylon swab stick was used for taking the samples from NP-OP and the floor of the oral cavity. The data were analyzed for sensitivity, specificity, concordance of COVID-19 status, and limits of agreement for cycle threshold (ct) values by either method. Forty-nine suspects (61.3%) were males, the mean age was 36.4 years. To determine the diagnostic test performance of the saliva, RT-PCR results of the NP-OP samples were used as the reference standard. Out of 80 suspects, 41 showed positivity by NP-OP swabs and 12 by salivary samples. The salivary samples showed significantly lesser positivity rate. The sensitivity and specificity of salivary samples against conventional reference standards are 24.4%, 94.9% respectively. Concordance of these two types of samples in terms of agreement kappa statistics is estimated as K = 0.252 (0.09–0.42). Median ct values of both the E and ORF1ab gene for the salivary samples were higher compared to the corresponding NP-OP sample. This study showed lesser sensitivity with salivary swab samples as compared to conventional NP-OP sampling for RT-PCR, COVID-19 detection. Hence, we are of opinion that more studies are required to establish the utility of salivary sampling in COVID-19 diagnostics.
Nursing takes aim at its own foot.

C. Lindeman

Abstract:
Diagnosis with Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) technology and real-time PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron detection using various nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron

Sujuan Li,Yuanhang Zhang,Pengcheng Tong,Wei Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305289

IF: 3.7

2024-08-06

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, with the main subtypes BA.5.2 and BF.7 in China, led to off-target effects on the S and N genes from December 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. The kits used for studying and developing these agents were not adequately and independently evaluated. It is important to verify the performance of commercial Real-Time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) tests. Objective: We conducted a clinical evaluation of two Real Time SARS-CoV-2 Omicron assays to verify their performance using various detection reagents and clinical specimens. Methods: We performed clinical evaluations of two existing Chinese SARS-CoV-2 Omicron RT-qPCR kits 2019-nCoV nucleic acid diagnostic kits (Fosun Biotechnology, National instrument registration 20203400299, Shanghai, China) and COVID-19 nucleic acid detection kits (eDiagnosis Biomedicine, National instrument registration 20203400212, Wuhan, China) and using BSD (Bondson) (Guangzhou Bondson Biotechnology Co. Ltd, batch number 2022101), quality controls provided by the inspection center and a large number of clinically confirmed specimens. Results: The concordance rates for the Fosun and eDiagnosis kits were 95% and 100%, respectively. The detection limit for the Fosun and eDiagnosis kits was verified to be 300 copies/mL and 500 copies/mL. The Fosun assay exhibited the largest coefficient of variation (CV) for ORF1ab and N gene at the detection limit concentration (4.80%, 3.49%), whereas eDiagnosis showed a smaller CV (0.93%, 1.10%). In the reference product from the Hangzhou Clinical Laboratory Center test, it was found that Fosun had the lowest sensitivity of 93.47% and a specificity of 100%, while eDiagnosis exhibited 100% for both sensitivity and specificity. The lowest single target gene detection rate of Fosun reagents was 68.7% for the ORF1ab gene and 87.5% for the N gene, while eDiagnosis detection rate was 100%. Among the clinical group S specimens, the missed detection rate of the Fosun reagent was 10.9%, which was higher than the 3.9% of eDiagnosis. However, there was no significant difference in the clinical diagnostic efficiency of the two reagents. Conclusions: The ORF1ab and N assays of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron on the eDiagnosis platform yielded higher values compared to those on the Fosun platform. Consequently, the eDiagnosis kit has also been used as standard detection reagents. Considering that the Fosun reagent has a relatively low detection limit and targets three single genes, it is more advantageous as a confirmatory reagent for the new museum.
Saliva as an Alternative Specimen for Molecular COVID-19 Testing in Community Settings and Population-Based Screening

Abiola Senok,Hanan Alsuwaidi,Yusrah Atrah,Ola Al Ayedi,Janan Al Zahid,Aaron Han,Asma Al Marzooqi,Saba Al Heialy,Basel Altrabulsi,Laila AbdelWareth,Youssef Idaghdour,Raghib Ali,Tom Loney,Alawi Alsheikh-Ali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S275152

2020-10-02

Infection and Drug Resistance

Abstract:Abiola Senok, 1, * Hanan Alsuwaidi, 1, * Yusrah Atrah, 2 Ola Al Ayedi, 3 Janan Al Zahid, 2 Aaron Han, 1 Asma Al Marzooqi, 3 Saba Al Heialy, 1, 4 Basel Altrabulsi, 5 Laila AbdelWareth, 5, 6 Youssef Idaghdour, 7 Raghib Ali, 7 Tom Loney, 1 Alawi Alsheikh-Ali 1 1 College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 2 Molecular Department, Unilabs UAE, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 3 Al Khawaneej Health Center, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 4 Meakins-Christie Laboratories, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; 5 National Reference Laboratory, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; 6 Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; 7 Public Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates *These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Abiola Senok College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Building 14, Dubai Healthcare City, Dubai 505055, United Arab Emirates Tel +97143838717 Email abiola.senok@mbru.ac.ae Purpose: With the easing of restriction measures, repeated community-based sampling for tracking new COVID-19 infections is anticipated for the next 6 to 12 months. A non-invasive, self-collected specimen like saliva will be useful for such public health surveillance. Investigations on the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR have largely been among COVID-19 in-pa\tients and symptomatic ambulatory patients with limited work in a community-based screening setting. This study was carried out to address this paucity of data and reported discrepancies in diagnostic accuracy for saliva samples. Patients and Methods: From 29th June to 14th July 2020, adults presenting for COVID-19 testing at a community-based screening facility in Dubai, United Arab Emirates were recruited. Clinical data, nasopharyngeal swab in universal transport media and drooling saliva in sterile containers were obtained. Reverse transcriptase PCR amplification of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp and N genes was used to detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Results: Of the 401 participants, 35 (8.7%) had viral detection in at least one specimen type and the majority (n=20/35; 57.1%) were asymptomatic. Both swab and saliva were positive in 19 (54.2%) patients, while 7 (20.0%) patients had swab positive/saliva negative results. There were 9 (25.7%) patients with saliva positive/swab negative result and this included 5 asymptomatic COVID-19 patients undergoing repeat screening. Using the swab as the reference gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of saliva were 73.1% (95% CI 52.2– 88.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI 95.5– 98.9%) while the positive and negative predictive values were 67.9% (95% CI 51.5– 80.8%) and 98.1% (95% CI 96.5– 99.0%), respectively. Conclusion: The findings suggest good diagnostic accuracy for saliva and feasibility of utilization of specimen without transport media for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Saliva represents a potential specimen of choice in community settings and population-based screening. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, nasopharyngeal swab, molecular test, population-based screening, saliva
Meta-Analysis Of Diagnostic Performance Of Serology Tests For Covid-19: Impact Of Assay Design And Post-Symptom-Onset Intervals

Hongyu Wang,Jingwen Ai,Michael J Loeffelholz,Yi-Wei Tang,Wenhong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1826362

2020-01-01

Emerging Microbes & Infections

Abstract:Serology detection is recognized for its sensitivity in convalescent patients with COVID-19, in comparison with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). This article aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serologic methods for COVID-19 based on assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Ovid, EBSCO for case-control, longitudinal and cohort studies that determined the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests in comparison with NAATs in COVID-19 cases and used QUADAS-2 for quality assessment. Pooled accuracy was analysed using INLA method. A total of 27 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 4 cohort, 16 case-control and 7 longitudinal studies and 4565 participants. Serology tests had the lowest sensitivity at 0-7 days after symptom onset and the highest at >14 days. TAB had a better sensitivity than IgG or IgM only. Using combined nucleocapsid (N) and spike(S) protein had a better sensitivity compared to N or S protein only. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) had a lower sensitivity than enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). Serology tests will play an important role in the clinical diagnosis for later stage COVID-19 patients. ELISA tests, detecting TAB or targeting combined N and S proteins had a higher diagnostic sensitivity compared to other methods.
Value of Swab Types and Collection Time on SARS-COV-2 Detection Using RT-PCR Assay.

Min Liu,Qianyuan Li,Jun Zhou,Wen Ai,Xiaoling Zheng,Jingjing Zeng,Yuwen Liu,Xiying Xiang,Rong Guo,Xiaoyin Li,Xiandi Wu,Haiying Xu,Ling Jiang,Huaqin Zhang,Jing Chen,Lili Tian,Jun Luo,Chunhua Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113974

IF: 2.623

2020-01-01

Journal of Virological Methods

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:Low viral load from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 during infection late stage easily lead to false negative nucleic acid testing results, thus having great challenges to the prevention and control of the current pandemic. In present study, we mainly aimed to evaluate specimen types and specimen collection timepoint on the positive detection of 2019 novel coronavirus from patients at infection late stage based on RT-PCR testing.METHODS:Paired nasopharyngeal swabs, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal swabs and anal swabs were collected from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 during infection late stage before washing in the morning and afternoon on the same day. Then virus RNA was extracted and tested for 2019-nCoV identification by RT-PCR within 24 h.RESULTS:Viral load was low at late infection stage. Specimens collected before washing in the morning would increase the detection ratio of 2019-nCoV. Detection ratio of nasopharyngeal swab [65 (95 % CI: 49.51-77.87) vs 42.5(95 % CI: 28.51-57.8)] or nasal swab [57.5 (95 % CI: 42.2-71.49) vs 35 (95 % CI: 22.13-50.49)] is higher not only than oropharyngeal swab[22.5 (95 % CI: 12.32-37.5) vs 7.5 (95 % CI: 2.58-19.86)], but also anal swab[2.5 (95 % CI: 0.44-12.88) vs 5 (95 % CI: 1.38-16.5)].CONCLUSIONS:In summary, our research discovers that nasopharyngeal or nasal swab collected before washing in the morning might be more suitable for detecting of large-scale specimens from patients infected with low SARS-CoV-2 load during infection late stage. Those results could facilitate other laboratories in collecting appropriate specimens for improving detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patients during infection late stage as well as initially screening.
Sensitivity, Specificity and Predictive Values of Molecular and Serological Tests for COVID-19: A Longitudinal Study in Emergency Room

Zeno Bisoffi,Elena Pomari,Michela Deiana,Chiara Piubelli,Niccolò Ronzoni,Anna Beltrame,Giulia Bertoli,Niccolò Riccardi,Francesca Perandin,Fabio Formenti,Federico Gobbi,Dora Buonfrate,Ronaldo Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10090669

IF: 3.6

2020-09-03

Diagnostics

Abstract:Background: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of molecular and serological tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: A total of 346 patients were enrolled in the emergency room. We evaluated three Reverse Transcriptase-real time PCRs (RT-PCRs) including six different gene targets, five serologic rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and one ELISA. The final classification of infected/non-infected patients was performed using Latent Class Analysis combined with clinical re-assessment of incongruous cases. Results: Out of these, 24.6% of patients were classified as infected. The molecular test RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 showed the highest performance with 91.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100.0% PPV and 97.4% NPV respectively. Considering the single gene targets, S and RdRp of RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 had the highest sensitivity (94.1%). The in-house RdRp presented the lowest sensitivity (62.4%). The specificity ranged from 99.2% for in-house RdRp and N2 to 95.0% for E. The PPV ranged from 97.1% of N2 to 85.4% of E and the NPV from 98.1% of S to 89.0% of in-house RdRp. All serological tests had < 50% sensitivity and low PPV and NPV. VivaDiag IgM (RDT) had 98.5% specificity, with 84.0% PPV, but 24.7% sensitivity. Conclusion: Molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection showed excellent specificity, but significant differences in sensitivity. Serological tests have limited utility in a clinical context.

medicine, general & internal
Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinical samples

Yan Dang,Ning Liu,Chianru Tan,Yingmei Feng,Xingxing Yuan,Dongdong Fan,Yanke Peng,Ronghua Jin,Yong Guo,Jinli Lou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.033

IF: 6.314

2020-01-01

Clinica Chimica Acta

Abstract:Background: Qualitative and quantitative detection of nucleic acids of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), plays a significant role in COVID-19 diagnosis, surveillance, prevention, and control. Methods: A total of 117 samples from 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 61 patients without COVID-19 were collected. Reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) were used for qualitative and quantitative analyses of these samples to evaluate the diagnostic performance and applicability of the two methods. Results: The positive detection rates of RT-qPCR and ddPCR were 93.3% and 100%, respectively. Among the 117 samples, 6 samples were tested single-gene positive by RT-qPCR but positive by ddPCR, and 3 samples were tested negative by RT-qPCR but positive by ddPCR. The viral load of samples with inconsistent results were relatively low (3.1-20.5 copies/test). There were 17 samples (37%) with a viral load below 20 copies/test among the 46 positive samples, and only 9 of them were successfully detected by RT-qPCR. A severe patient was dynamically monitored. All 6 samples from this patient were tested negative by RT-qPCR, but 4 samples were tested positive by ddPCR with a low viral load. Conclusion: Qualitative analysis of COVID-19 samples can meet the needs of clinical screening and diagnosis, while quantitative analysis provides more information to the research community. Although both ddPCR and RT-qPCR can provide qualitative and quantitative results, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity and lower limit of detection than RT-qPCR, and it does not rely on the standard curve to quantify viral load. Therefore, ddPCR offers greater advantages than RT-qPCR.

Position statement: nutrition options when reducing saturated fat intake.

Assessment Of The Diagnostic Ability Of Four Detection Methods Using Three Sample Types Of Covid-19 Patients

Diagnostic Performance and Tolerability of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Test Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 17,171 Suspected COVID-19 Patients

Morphogenesis at the retrotransposon-retrovirus interface: gypsy and copia families in yeast and Drosophila.

Analysis of factors associated early diagnosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Performance of Self-Performed SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical sensitivity and interpretation of PCR and serological COVID‐19 diagnostics for patients presenting to the hospital

RT- PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Between justification and overestimation, a multi-center international study

Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

Conventional Naso-Oropharyngeal Sampling Versus Self-Collected Saliva Samples in COVID-19 Testing

Nursing takes aim at its own foot.

Diagnosis with Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) technology and real-time PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron detection using various nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron

Saliva as an Alternative Specimen for Molecular COVID-19 Testing in Community Settings and Population-Based Screening

Meta-Analysis Of Diagnostic Performance Of Serology Tests For Covid-19: Impact Of Assay Design And Post-Symptom-Onset Intervals

Value of Swab Types and Collection Time on SARS-COV-2 Detection Using RT-PCR Assay.

Sensitivity, Specificity and Predictive Values of Molecular and Serological Tests for COVID-19: A Longitudinal Study in Emergency Room

Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinical samples