Potential usage of anterior nasal sampling in clinical practice with three rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2

Introduction Anterior nasal sampling (AN) might be more convenient for patients than NP sampling to diagnose coronavirus disease. This study investigated the feasibility of rapid antigen tests for AN sampling, and the factors affecting the test accuracy. Methods This single-center prospective study evaluated one qualitative (ESP) and two quantitative (LUMI and LUMI-P) rapid antigen tests using AN and NP swabs. Symptomatic patients aged 20 years or older, who were considered eligible for reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction using NP samples within 9 days of onset were recruited. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative concordance rates between AN and NP samples were assessed for the rapid antigen tests. We investigated the characteristics that affected the concordance between AN and NP sampling results. Results A total of 128 cases were recruited, including 28 positive samples and 100 negative samples. The sensitivity and specificity of AN samples using ESP were 0.81 and 1.00, while those of NP samples were 0.94 and 1.00. The sensitivity of AN and NP samples was 0.91 and 0.97, respectively, and specificity was 1.00, for both LUMI and LUMI-P. The positive concordance rates of AN to NP sampling were 0.87, 0.94, and 0.85 for ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P, respectively. No factor had a significant effect on the concordance between the sampling methods. Conclusions ESP, LUMI, and LUMI-P showed practical diagnostic accuracy for AN sampling compared to NP sampling. There was no significant factor affecting the concordance between AN and NP sampling for these rapid antigen tests.

Evaluation of the Detection of Pathogens in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 at a Tertiary Hospital in Japan.

The detection of other pathogens in patients with hospitalized coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are not frequent. Considering that data from Japan are limited, we conducted an observational study including patients with hospitalized COVID-19 at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine from January to September 2020. In total, 247 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Rapid diagnostic tests, such as immunochromatography, were performed in 31 patients (12.6%). The Film Array Respiratory Panel was performed in 18 (7.3%) patients, and none of the tests were positive for pathogens other than severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Respiratory bacterial culture was performed in 66 (26.7%) patients, with gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria and normal flora being detected in eight (12.1%), seven (10.6%), and 63 (95.5%) patients, respectively. Patients for whom cultures were performed were older, more severely ill, and more likely to have radiological evidence of pneumonia on admission. Culture was performed more frequently in the early than in the later period of the epidemic, without any differences being observed in bacterial detection rates. The proportion of viral and bacterial detection among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in tertiary care hospitals in Japan was low. A larger cohort study is necessary to evaluate the effect of each pathogen on the clinical course of COVID-19.

Negative Results of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Practice May Vary among Six Molecular Assays in Patients with COVID-19.

Several commercial nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed. We used 6 kits available in Japan in 13 NAAT-positive specimens with crossing point values >36 and 7 NAAT-negative specimens from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and their results were compared. Specimens positive in ≥2 assays were considered true-positive and examined for concordance with the specimen results. The SARS-CoV-2 Detection Kit -Multi- (Toyobo M; Toyobo, Osaka, Japan) using extracted RNA had the highest concordance (κ = 1.00). This was followed by Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) (κ = 0.79). There was a weak correlation between the number of negative results for each kit and the number of days between onset and testing (Spearman rank correlation: ρ = 0.44; P < 0.05). We believe that the variations in results among kits for specimens with low viral loads should not be problematic when these kits are used for screening infectious patients because these variations are more likely to be observed in specimens tested many days after onset (i.e., those that have lost their infectivity). However, it may be better to use a test for suspected late-stage COVID-19 with a low viral load, such as Toyobo M or Cobas.

Effective screening strategies for detection of asymptomatic COVID-19 travelers at airport quarantine stations: Exploratory findings in Japan.

The quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction method using nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS RT-qPCR) is regarded as the reference standard for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, when using NPS RT-qPCR at busy airport quarantine stations, there are constraints on testing capacity, time, travelerstolerance, and availability of personal protective equipment for quarantine officers. A feasible alternative is therefore needed to test incoming travelers, especially when passenger numbers increase with the resumption of business, tourism, and economic activities. To explore alternatives to NPS RT-qPCR, we collected nasopharyngeal, anterior nasal, and saliva samples chronologically over days 1-7 from asymptomatic COVID-19 air travelers who were under quarantine at a designated facility, and we then compared test results for 9 different methods, comprising RT-qPCR (including the reference method), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), and qualitative and quantitative antigen testing. We evaluated sensitivity for 97 person-day samples independently to evaluate asymptomatic travelers regardless of their testing date and period of asymptomatic status upon entry. Sensitivity of the different tests varied from 46.6% to 81.0%, but this was improved from 72.7% to 100.0% when the viral load was > 10 4 copies/sample on NPS RT-qPCR. Thus, most high-risk asymptomatic travelers with higher viral load would be detected by the tests evaluated. Quantitative antigen testing using saliva samples showed 90.9% sensitivity and provided quicker results, and should be an acceptable alternative to NPS RT-qPCR at busy airport quarantine stations. We discuss the implications of our exploratory findings for establishing a comprehensive and feasible testing strategy for COVID-19 among air passengers.