Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and to share accurate and independent data with the global community requires multisite prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test (CTK Biotech, CA, USA) in Brazil and the United Kingdom. A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic health care workers at Hospital das Clínicas in São Paulo, Brazil, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Swabs were analyzed by Ag-RDT, and results were compared to quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR). The clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test in Brazil was 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.1 to 96.7%) and in the United Kingdom was 75.3% (95% CI, 64.6 to 83.6%). The clinical specificity in Brazil was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.1 to 99.8%) and in the United Kingdom was 95.5% (95% CI, 90.6 to 97.9%). Concurrently, analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from wild-type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma, and Omicron lineages. This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and populations. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrated a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturer. The sensitivity and specificity from the Brazil study fulfilled the performance criteria determined by the World Health Organization, but the performance obtained from the UK study failed to do. Further evaluation of Ag-RDTs should include harmonized protocols between laboratories to facilitate comparison between settings. IMPORTANCE Evaluating rapid diagnostic tests in diverse populations is essential to improving diagnostic responses as it gives an indication of the accuracy in real-world scenarios. In the case of rapid diagnostic testing within this pandemic, lateral flow tests that meet the minimum requirements for sensitivity and specificity can play a key role in increasing testing capacity, allowing timely clinical management of those infected, and protecting health care systems. This is particularly valuable in settings where access to the test gold standard is often restricted.

A high-resolution melt curve toolkit to identify lineage-defining SARS-CoV-2 mutations.

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs), with mutations linked to increased transmissibility, vaccine escape and virulence, has necessitated the widespread genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2. This has placed a strain on global sequencing capacity, especially in areas lacking the resources for large scale sequencing activities. Here we have developed three separate multiplex high-resolution melting assays to enable the identification of Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron VOCs. The assays were evaluated against whole genome sequencing on upper-respiratory swab samples collected during the Alpha, Delta and Omicron [BA.1] waves of the UK pandemic. The sensitivities of the eight individual primer sets were all 100%, and specificity ranged from 94.6 to 100%. The multiplex HRM assays have potential as a tool for high throughput surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, particularly in areas with limited genomics facilities.

Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage. RESULTS: For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4-67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6-99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0-76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9-99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct<20 (in Peru; 95% [95% CI 76.4-99.1%] and 100.0% [95% CI 74.1-100.0%] and in the UK; 59.2% [95% CI 44.2-73.0%] and 100.0% [95% CI 15.8-100.0%], for the GENDIA and the ActiveXpress+, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods.

Focused echocardiography in COVID-19: An unusual case of acute right ventricular dysfunction.

Background: During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, rapid diagnostics have been frequently sought to quickly evaluate a patient's condition. Lung ultrasound can provide an early glimpse into the disease process and its severity. The addition of focused echocardiography can be particularly helpful in the haemodynamically compromised patient to detect myocardial involvement and alternative diagnoses. Case: We discuss here a 53-year-old patient who presented to the Emergency Department with hypoxia and hypotension. Bedside focused ultrasound revealed signs of COVID-19 pneumonia with evidence of right ventricular strain, initially thought to be due to massive pulmonary embolism. A computed tomography scan confirmed the findings on ultrasonography, but surprisingly did not demonstrate a pulmonary embolism. Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasound in COVID-19 aided the diagnosis of affected organs and helped categorise the type of shock in this patient; however, right ventricular dysfunction should be interpreted with caution and may not be due to a pulmonary embolism, as in this case.

Primary survey: Highlights from this issue

Fernando et al report a large retrospective evaluation of prehospital opioid use in patients with ACS, finding no association with major adverse cardiac events, though patients who received opioids were more likely to have critically obstructed coronary flow prior to coronary intervention. Separately, Wilkinson-Stokes et al report a systematic review to examine the assertion that nitrates should not be used in patients with right ventricular myocardial infarction, due to the risk of precipitating hypotension. In that analysis, the absence of blood flow on Doppler ultrasound had a sensitivity of only 58.3% with 81.3% negative predictive value.

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of a Novel Coronavirus Antigen Lateral Flow Test among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the commercialization of many antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), requiring independent evaluations. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom. The collected samples (446 nasal swabs from Brazil and 246 nasopharyngeal samples from the UK) were analyzed by the Ag-RDT and compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was performed using direct culture supernatants of SARS-CoV-2 strains from the wild-type (B.1), Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Gamma (P.1), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) lineages. An overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3 to 93.3) and 100.0% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100.0), respectively, were obtained for the Brazilian and UK cohorts. The analytical limit of detection was determined as 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Alpha), 2.5 × 102 PFU/mL (Delta), 2.5 × 103 PFU/mL (Gamma), and 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Omicron), giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1 × 104 copies/mL, 9.0 × 105 copies/mL, 1.7 × 106 copies/mL, and 1.8 × 105 copies/mL for the Ag-RDT, respectively. Overall, while a higher sensitivity was claimed by the manufacturers than that found in this study, this evaluation finds that the Ag-RDT meets the WHO minimum performance requirements for sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 Ag-RDTs. This study illustrates the comparative performance of the Hotgen Ag-RDT across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods. IMPORTANCE Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have witnessed growing numbers of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) being brought to market. In the United Kingdom, this was somewhat controlled indirectly as the government offered free tests from a small number of companies. However, as this has now ceased, individuals are responsible for their own acquisition of test kits. Similarly in Brazil, as of January 2022, pharmacies and other health care retailers are permitted to sell Ag-RDTs directly to the community. Many of these Ag-RDTs have not been externally evaluated, and results are not readily available to the public. Thus, there is now a need for a transparent evaluation of Ag-RDTs with both analytical and clinical evaluation. We present an independent review of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom.

Journal update monthly top five

Correspondence to Dr Gabrielle Prager, Emergency Department, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK;lgprager@doctors.org.uk This month’s update has been prepared by the Emergency Medicine & Intensive Care Research Group (EMERGING) from Manchester. Head turner Predicting which patients will survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with good functional outcomes could help guide resuscitative efforts. Lack of blinding is a potential source of bias, but the apparent preference of parents for immobilisation may influence physician choice of treatment.2 Bottom line In children treated for Torus fractures, there is no difference in self-reported pain or function using a simple bandage versus a splint or cast. Notably, since this paper was published, the UK RECOVERY trial suggested a probable benefit in using them together.5 6 Bottom line In patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and receiving remdesivir, there was no difference in ventilator-free survival between those treated with baricitinib or dexamethasone.

A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. METHODS: Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9-97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0-87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7-19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3-100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3-100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5-1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7-100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1-100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2-98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5-95.5, p = 0.003). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing.

Examining the effect of evaluation sample size on the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 diagnostic tests in practice: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, many in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed. Given the urgent clinical demand, researchers must balance the desire for precise estimates of sensitivity and specificity against the need for rapid implementation. To complement estimates of precision used for sample size calculations, we aimed to estimate the probability that an IVD will fail to perform to expected standards after implementation, following clinical studies with varying sample sizes. METHODS: We assumed that clinical validation study estimates met the 'desirable' performance (sensitivity 97%, specificity 99%) in the target product profile (TPP) published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). To estimate the real-world impact of imprecision imposed by sample size we used Bayesian posterior calculations along with Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 independent iterations of 5,000 participants. We varied the prevalence between 1 and 15% and the sample size between 30 and 2,000. For each sample size, we estimated the probability that diagnostic accuracy would fail to meet the TPP criteria after implementation. RESULTS: For a validation study that demonstrates 'desirable' sensitivity within a sample of 30 participants who test positive for COVID-19 using the reference standard, the probability that real-world performance will fail to meet the 'desirable' criteria is 10.7-13.5%, depending on prevalence. Theoretically, demonstrating the 'desirable' performance in 90 positive participants would reduce that probability to below 5%. A marked reduction in the probability of failure to hit 'desirable' specificity occurred between samples of 100 (19.1-21.5%) and 160 (4.3-4.8%) negative participants. There was little further improvement above sample sizes of 160 negative participants. CONCLUSION: Based on imprecision alone, small evaluation studies can lead to the acceptance of diagnostic tests which are likely to fail to meet performance targets when deployed. There is diminished return on uncertainty surrounding an accuracy estimate above a total sample size of 250 (90 positive and 160 negative).

Highlights from this issue

Interestingly, given the relatively recent publication of landmark trials such as AIRWAYS-2 (which identified no benefit with advanced airway management in out of hospital cardiac arrest), Doan et al found that advanced airway management was associated with improved odds of survival to hospital handover. [...]we know that the ‘awareness time interval’ (the time from witnessing cardiac arrest to activating emergency services) is an important prognostic factor for patients with OHCA. [...]linking with the discrete choice experiment asking ‘who should get the scarce intensive care unit bed?’ mentioned above, Walzi et al present the findings of a systematic review of factors influencing decisions to limit treatment in the Emergency Department.

Point of care testing using rapid automated antigen testing for SARS-COV-2 in care homes – an exploratory safety, usability and diagnostic agreement evaluation

IntroductionSuccessful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of the contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes.MethodsA mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was conducted to explore biosafety issues.ResultsThe agreement analysis was conducted on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI:1.3%?98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%?98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857?0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%?99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%?100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549?1). The dry run highlighted four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation post-modification showed no further evidence of contamination.ConclusionCareful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption.

COVID-19 rapid diagnostics: practice review.

Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.This practice review is written by members of the UK's COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.

Highlights from this issue

[...]Daskal et al have examined the significance of flail chest. Ultrasound-Guided reduction of distal radial fractures With the rise of the use of ultrasound in emergency medicine, an interesting use case is to guide the reduction of distal radial fractures. Smits et al asked emergency physicians to record what they believed to be the causative agent when they were treating patients with apparent drug overdoses.

Systematic literature search, review and dissemination methodology for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose of the study: SARS-CoV-2 has caused healthcare systems globally to reorganise. A pandemic paradox emerged; while clinicians were desperate for information on a new disease, they had less time to find and evaluate the vast volume of publications at times of significant strain on healthcare systems.A multidisciplinary team undertook a weekly literature search capturing all COVID-19 publications. We also monitored free open access medical education (FOAMed) sources for emerging themes. Title and abstract screening pooled the most relevant papers for emergency medicine. Three summary types were created, a 'Top 5 Flash Update', a journal club and a rapid response to emerging FOAMed themes. From these summaries, three modes of dissemination were used: short written summaries, blogs and podcasts. These were amplified through social media. Study design: A retrospective review was conducted assessing the impact of this knowledge dissemination strategy for the period of March to September 2020. Results: In total, 64 687 papers were identified and screened. Of the papers included in the 'Top 5', 28.3% were on epidemiology, 23.6% treatment, 16.7% diagnostics, 12% prognosis, 8.7% pathophysiology with the remaining 10.7% consisting of PPE, public health, well-being and 'other'. We published 37 blogs, 17 podcasts and 18 Top 5 Flash Updates. The blogs were read 138 343 times, the Top 5 Flash Updates 68 610 times and the podcasts had 72 501 listens. Conclusion: A combination of traditional academic and novel social media approaches can address the pandemic paradox clinicians are facing.

Pharmacogenetics to Avoid Loss of Hearing (PALOH) trial: a protocol for a prospective observational implementation trial.

INTRODUCTION: In conjunction with a beta-lactam, aminoglycosides are the first-choice antibiotic for empirical treatment of sepsis in the neonatal period. The m.1555A>G variant predisposes to ototoxicity after aminoglycoside administration and has a prevalence of 1 in 500. Current genetic testing can take over 24 hours, an unacceptable delay in the acute setting. This prospective-observational trial will implement a rapid point of care test (POCT), facilitating tailored antibiotic prescribing to avoid hearing loss. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The genedrive POCT can detect the m.1555A>G variant in 26 min from buccal swab. This system will be integrated into the clinical pathways at two large UK neonatal centres over a minimum 6-month period. The primary outcome is the number of neonates successfully tested for the variant out of all babies prescribed antibiotics. As a secondary outcome, clinical timings will be compared with data collected prior to implementation, measuring the impact on routine practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for the trial was granted by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Human Research Authority in August 2019. Results will be published in full on completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13704894. PROTOCOL VERSION: V 1.3.

Care pathway and prioritization of rapid testing for COVID-19 in UK hospitals: a qualitative evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The second wave of the coronavirus pandemic is now established, occurring at a time of winter pressure on acute care in the NHS. This is likely to be more challenging then the first wave for the diagnosis of COVID-19 because of the similar symptomology with other respiratory conditions highly prevalent in winter. This study sought to understand the care pathways in place in UK NHS hospitals during the first wave (March-July 2020) for identification of patients with COVID-19 and to learn lessons to inform optimal testing strategies within the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR). DESIGN, SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen hospital-based clinicians from 12 UK NHS Trusts covering 10 different specialties were interviewed following a semi-structured topic guide. Data were coded soon after the interviews and analysed thematically. RESULTS: We developed a diagrammatic, high-level visualisation of the care pathway describing the main clinical decisions associated with the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected COVID-19. COVID-19 testing influenced infection control considerations more so than treatment decisions. Two main features of service provision influenced the patient management significantly: access to rapid laboratory testing and the number of single occupancy rooms. If time to return of result was greater than 24 h, patients with a presumptive diagnosis would often be cohorted based on clinical suspicion alone. Undetected COVID-19 during this time could therefore lead to an increased risk of viral transmission. CONCLUSIONS: During the winter months, priority for provision of rapid testing at admission should be given to hospitals with limited access to laboratory services and single room availability. Access to rapid testing is essential for urgent decisions related to emergency surgery, maternity services and organ transplant. The pathway and prioritization of need will inform the economic modelling, clinical evaluations, and implementation of new clinical tests in UK.

COVID-19 point-of-care testing in care homes: what are the lessons for policy and practice?

COVID-19 has devastated care homes. Point-of-care tests (POCTs), mainly using lateral flow devices (LFDs), have been deployed hurriedly without much consideration of their usability or impact on care workflow. Even after the pandemic, POCTs, particularly multiplex tests, may be an important control against spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in care homes by enabling identification of cases. They should not, however, replace other infection control measures such as barrier methods and quarantine. Adherence to LFDs as implemented among care home staff is suboptimal. Other tests-such as point-of-care polymerase chain reaction and automated antigen tests-would also need to be accommodated into care home workflows to improve adherence. The up-front costs of POCTs are straightforward but additional costs, including staffing preparation and reporting processes and the impacts of false positive and negative tests on absence rates and infection days, are more complex and as yet unquantified. A detailed appraisal is needed as the future of testing in care homes is considered.