Diagnostic Performance of Six Rapid Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2.

Microbiological diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a challenge. Although real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) represents the gold standard method, strategies that allow rapid and simple diagnosis are necessary for the early identification of cases. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of six different commercial rapid antigen tests (Coronavirus antigen [Ag] rapid test cassette [Healgen Scientific, Houston, TX, USA], COVID-19 Ag FIA [Vircell, SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea], Clinitest rapid COVID-19 antigen test [Siemens, Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany], SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test [SD Biosensor; Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland], Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test device [Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA], and SARS-CoV-2 test [MonLab, Barcelona, Spain]) in 130 nasopharyngeal swab samples tested previously by RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the rapid tests ranged from 65% to 79%, and the specificity was 100% for all of them. The sensitivity was higher for those samples with RT-PCR cycle threshold (CT) values below 25 and those from patients presenting within the first week of symptoms. The Siemens test showed the highest sensitivity for patients with high viral loads while the Vircell test performed better than the rest for CT values of ≥25. IMPORTANCE The rapid detection of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 is essential for a correct and effective control of the disease it causes. This process must be sensitive, fast, and simple, and it must be possible to carry out in any type of health center. Rapid antigen tests are the answer to this need. Knowing its ability to detect the virus in different stages of the disease is essential for a correct diagnosis, which is why this study has been carried out to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 6 different antigens tests in nasopharyngeal smear samples.

Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling Findings in 12 Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS), a postmortem procedure that uses core needle biopsy samples and does not require opening the body, may be a valid alternative to complete autopsy (CA) in highly infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). This study aimed to (1) compare the performance of MITS and CA in a series of COVID-19 deaths and (2) evaluate the safety of the procedure. METHODS: From October 2020 to February 2021, MITS was conducted in 12 adults who tested positive before death for COVID-19, in a standard, well-ventilated autopsy room, where personnel used reinforced personal protective equipment. In 9 cases, a CA was performed after MITS. A thorough histological evaluation was conducted, and the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was evaluated by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The diagnoses provided by MITS and CA matched almost perfectly. In 9 patients, COVID-19 was in the chain of events leading to death, being responsible for diffuse alveolar damage and mononuclear T-cell inflammatory response in the lungs. No specific COVID-19 features were identified. Three deaths were not related to COVID-19. All personnel involved in MITS repeatedly tested negative for COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was identified by RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry in the MITS samples, particularly in the lungs. CONCLUSIONS: MITS is useful for evaluating COVID-19-related deaths in settings where a CA is not feasible. The results of this simplified and safer technique are comparable to those of CA.

Minimally Invasive Autopsy Practice in COVID-19 Cases: Biosafety and Findings.

Postmortem studies are crucial for providing insight into emergent diseases. However, a complete autopsy is frequently not feasible in highly transmissible diseases due to biohazard challenges. Minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is a needle-based approach aimed at collecting samples of key organs without opening the body, which may be a valid alternative in these cases. We aimed to: (a) provide biosafety guidelines for conducting MIAs in COVID-19 cases, (b) compare the performance of MIA versus complete autopsy, and (c) evaluate the safety of the procedure. Between October and December 2020, MIAs were conducted in six deceased patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, in a basic autopsy room, with reinforced personal protective equipment. Samples from the lungs and key organs were successfully obtained in all cases. A complete autopsy was performed on the same body immediately after the MIA. The diagnoses of the MIA matched those of the complete autopsy. In four patients, COVID-19 was the main cause of death, being responsible for the different stages of diffuse alveolar damage. No COVID-19 infection was detected in the personnel performing the MIAs or complete autopsies. In conclusion, MIA might be a feasible, adequate and safe alternative for cause of death investigation in COVID-19 cases.