Methylene blue: a controversial diagnostic acid and medication?

A narrative review of the literature was conducted to determine if the administration of methylene blue (MB) in humans has potential risks. Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane. MB is a diagnostic substance used during some diagnostic procedures and also a part of the treatment of several diseases including methemoglobinemia, vasoplegic syndrome, fosfamide-induced encephalopathy, and cyanide intoxication, and the detection of leaks or position of parathyroid corpuscles during surgery. Although the use of MB is historically justified, and it ought to be safe, because it originated as a diagnostic material, the basic toxicological characteristics of this substance are unknown. Despite reports of severe adverse effects of MB, which could significantly exceed any possible benefits evaluated for the given indication. Therefore, the clinical use of MB currently represents a controversial problem given the heterogeneity of available data and the lack of preclinical data. This is in conflict with standards of safe use of such substances in human medicinal practice. The toxic effects of the application of MB are dose-dependent and include serious symptoms such as hemolysis, methemoglobinemia, nausea and vomitus, chest pain, dyspnoea, and hypertension. Some countries regard MB as harmful because of the resulting skin irritation and triggering of an adverse inflammatory response. MB induced serotoninergic toxicity clinically manifests as neuromuscular hyperactivity. This review aims to summarize the current understanding concerning the indications for MB administration and define the potential adverse effects of MB.

Covid-19 antigen testing: better than we know? A test accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 is considered to be less sensitive than the standard reference method - real-time PCR (RT-PCR). It has been suggested that many patients with positive RT-PCR 'missed' by antigen testing might be non-infectious. METHODS: In a real-world high-throughput setting for asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients, 494 patients were tested using RT-PCR as well as a single lateral flow antigen test (Ecotest, AssureTech, China). Where the results differed, virus viability was evaluated by cell culture. The test parameters were calculated with RT-PCR and RT-PCR adjusted on viability as reference standards. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the used antigen test related to the RT-PCR only was 76.2%, specificity was 97.3%. However, 36 out of 39 patients 'missed' by the antigen test contained no viable virus. After adjusting on that, the sensitivity grew to 97.7% and, more importantly for disease control purposes, the negative predictive value reached 99.2%. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that viability testing should be always performed when evaluating a new antigen test. A well-chosen and validated antigen test provides excellent results in identifying patients who are shedding viable virus (although some caveats still remain) in the real-world high-throughput setting of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals.

Five Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Virus Viability Matters.

Antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 (AGT) is generally considered inferior to RT-PCR testing in terms of sensitivity. However, little is known about the infectiousness of RT-PCR positive patients who pass undetected by AGT. In a screening setting for mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with high COVID-19 prevalence (30-40%), 1141 patients were tested using one of five AGTs and RT-PCR. Where the results differed, virus viability in the samples was tested on cell culture (CV-1 cells). The test battery included AGTs by JOYSBIO, Assure Tech, SD Biosensor, VivaChek Biotech and NDFOS. Sensitivities of the ATGs compared to RT-PCR ranged from 42% to 76%. The best test yielded a 76% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 89% negative predictive values, respectively. However, in the best performing ATG tests, almost 90% of samples with "false negative" AGT results contained no viable virus. Corrected on the virus viability, sensitivities grew to 81-97% and, with one exception, the tests yielded high specificities >96%. Performance characteristics of the best test after adjustment were 96% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 92% positive, and 99% negative predictive values (high prevalence population). We, therefore, believe that virus viability should be considered when assessing the AGT performance. Also, our results indicate that a well-performing antigen test could in a high-prevalence setting serve as an excellent tool for identifying patients shedding viable virus. We also propose that the high proportion of RT-PCR-positive samples containing no viable virus in the group of "false negatives" of the antigen test should be further investigated with the aim of possibly preventing needless isolation of such patients.