Examination of the utility of the COVID-19 detection kit, TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i for nasopharyngeal swabs.

The reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) offers high sensitivity, but has some drawbacks, such as the time required for the RNA extraction. Transcription reverse-transcription concerted reaction (TRC) Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i is easy to use and can be performed in about 40 minutes. TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i and real-time one-step RT-PCR using the TaqMan probe tests of cryopreserved nasopharyngeal swab samples from patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were compared. The primary objective was to examine the positive and negative concordance rates. A total of 69 samples cryopreserved at -80° C were examined. Of the 37 frozen samples that were expected to be RT-PCR positive, 35 were positive by the RT-PCR method. TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i detected 33 positive cases and 2 negative cases. One frozen sample that was expected to be RT-PCR positive was negative on both TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i and RT-PCR. In addition, one frozen sample that was expected to be RT-PCR positive was positive by the RT-PCR method and negative by TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i. Of the 32 frozen samples that were expected to be RT-PCR negative, both the RT-PCR method and TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i yielded negative results for all 32 samples. Compared with RT-PCR, TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i had a positive concordance rate of 94.3% and a negative concordance rate of 97.1%. TRC Ready® SARS-CoV-2 i can be utilized in a wide range of medical sites such as clinics and community hospitals due to its ease of operability, and is expected to be useful in infection control.

Characteristics of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with other respiratory pathogens identified by rapid diagnostic test.

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) significantly impact disease treatment strategy. In Japan, information on the use of RDTs for patients with COVID-19 is limited. Here, we aimed to investigate the RDT implementation rate, pathogen detection rate, and clinical characteristics of patients positive for other pathogens by using COVIREGI-JP, a national registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A total of 42,309 COVID-19 patients were included. For immunochromatographic testing, influenza was the most common (n = 2881 [6.8%]), followed by Mycoplasma pneumoniae (n = 2129 [5%]) and group A streptococcus (GAS) (n = 372 [0.9%]). Urine antigen testing was performed for 5524 (13.1%) patients for S. pneumoniae and for 5326 patients (12.6%) for L. pneumophila. The completion rate of M. pneumonia loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) testing was low (n = 97 [0.2%]). FilmArray RP was performed in 372 (0.9%) patients; 1.2% (36/2881) of patients were positive for influenza, 0.9% (2/223) for the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), 9.6% (205/2129) for M. pneumoniae, and 7.3% (27/372) for GAS. The positivity rate for urine antigen testing was 3.3% (183/5524) for S. pneumoniae and 0.2% (13/5326) for L. pneumophila. The positivity rate for LAMP test was 5.2% (5/97) for M. pneumoniae. Five of 372 patients (1.3%) had positive FilmArray RP, with human enterovirus being the most frequently detected (1.3%, 5/372). The characteristics of patients with and without RDTs submission and positive and negative results differed for each pathogen. RDTs remain an important diagnostic tool in patients with COVID-19 in whom coinfection with other pathogens needs to be tested based on clinical evaluation.

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.

Duration of Infectious Virus Shedding by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant-Infected Vaccinees.

To determine virus shedding duration, we examined clinical samples collected from the upper respiratory tracts of persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant in Japan during November 29-December 18, 2021. Vaccinees with mild or asymptomatic infection shed infectious virus 6-9 days after onset or diagnosis, even after symptom resolution.

Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel, a rapid multiplex PCR method for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid, simple, and accurate methods are required to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), a rapid multiplex PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) that were obtained from patients with COVID-19 who were diagnosed at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine were used in this study. When the NPS samples were found to be negative for SARS-CoV-2 after treatment, they were used as negative samples. We evaluated the performance of the QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 comparing SARS-CoV-2 detection with the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Japan-recommended real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method (NIID-RT-PCR). RESULTS: In total, 45 NPS samples were analyzed. The proportion of overall agreement between QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and NIID-RT-PCR on 45 samples was 91.0% with a sensitivity of 84.0% (21/25), specificity at 100% (20/20), negative predictive value at 83.3% (20/24), and positive predictive value at 100% (21/21). There were no patients with co-infections with pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 showed a high agreement in comparison with the NIID-RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 also provided a rapid and accurate diagnosis for COVID-19, even when the concurrent detection of other respiratory pathogens was desired, and therefore, has the potential to direct appropriate therapy and infection control precautions.

Time-course evaluation of the quantitative antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: The potential contribution to alleviating isolation of COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The automated quantitative antigen test (QAT), which detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is suitable for mass screening. However, its diagnostic capability differentiated by time from onset and potential contribution to infectivity assessment have not been fully investigated. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study using nasopharyngeal swab specimens from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) inpatients was conducted using LumipulseⓇ SARS-CoV-2 antigen test. Diagnostic accuracy was examined for the early (up to 10 days after onset) and late (over 10 days after onset) stages. Time-course QAT changes and reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests results were displayed as locally estimated scatterplot smoothing curve, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine the appropriate cutoff value for differentiating the early and late stages. RESULTS: We obtained 100 specimens from 68 COVID-19 patients, including 51 early-stage and 49 late-stage specimens. QAT sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (0.72-0.90) and 0.95 (0.75-0.99) for all periods, 0.93 (0.82-0.98) and 1.00 (0.39-1.00) for the early stage, and 0.66 (0.48-0.82) and 0.93 (0.69-0.99) for the late stage, respectively. The ROC analysis indicated an ideal cutoff value of 6.93 pg/mL for distinguishing early-from late-stage specimens. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for predicting the late stage were 0.76 (0.61-0.87), 0.76 (0.63-0.87), 0.76 (0.61-0.87), and 0.76 (0.63-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: QAT has favorable diagnostic accuracy in the early COVID-19 stages. In addition, an appropriate cutoff point can potentially facilitate rapid identification of noncontagious patients.

Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab, nasal swab and saliva swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR.

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose. METHODS: Ten patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient. RESULTS: Fifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%. CONCLUSIONS: NS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.

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.

Utility of the antigen test for coronavirus disease 2019: Factors influencing the prediction of the possibility of disease transmission.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid antigen testing (RAT) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has lower sensitivity but high accuracy during the early stage when compared to reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The aim of this study was to investigate the concordance between RAT and RT-qPCR results, and their prediction of disease transmission. METHODS: This single-center retrospective observational study of inpatients with COVID-19 was conducted from March 6 to June 14, 2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were used to perform RAT and RT-qPCR. The primary endpoint was concordance between RAT and RT-qPCR results. The secondary endpoints were the factors causing disagreement in the results and the estimated transmissibility in RT-qPCR-positive patients with mild symptoms. RESULTS: Overall, 229 samples in viral transport medium (VTM) were obtained from 105 patients. The positive and negative concordance rates for VTM were 41% vs 99% (κ = 0.37) and 72% vs 100% (κ = 0.50) for samples collected on disease days 2-9. An increased body temperature (odds ratio 0.54) and absence of drugs with potential antiviral effect (odds ratio 0.48) yielded conflicting results. RAT was associated with the ability to end isolation (OR 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: RAT and RT-qPCR results were highly consistent for samples collected at the appropriate time and could be useful for inferring the possibility of transmissibility.