Utility of COVID-19 antigen testing in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The BinaxNOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag Card test (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc.) is a lateral flow immunochromatographic point-of-care test for the qualitative detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein antigen. It provides results from nasal swabs in 15 minutes. Our purpose was to determine its sensitivity and specificity for a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: Eligible patients had symptoms of COVID-19 or suspected exposure. After consent, 2 nasal swabs were collected; 1 was tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ie, the gold standard polymerase chain reaction test) and the second run on the BinaxNOW point of care platform by emergency department staff. RESULTS: From July 20 to October 28, 2020, 767 patients were enrolled, of which 735 had evaluable samples. Their mean (SD) age was 46.8 (16.6) years, and 422 (57.4%) were women. A total of 623 (84.8%) patients had COVID-19 symptoms, most commonly shortness of breath (n = 404; 55.0%), cough (n = 314; 42.7%), and fever (n = 253; 34.4%). Although 460 (62.6%) had symptoms ≤7 days, the mean (SD) time since symptom onset was 8.1 (14.0) days. Positive tests occurred in 173 (23.5%) and 141 (19.2%) with the gold standard versus BinaxNOW test, respectively. Those with symptoms >2 weeks had a positive test rate roughly half of those with earlier presentations. In patients with symptoms ≤7 days, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values for the BinaxNOW test were 84.6%, 98.5%, 94.9%, and 95.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BinaxNOW point-of-care test has good sensitivity and excellent specificity for the detection of COVID-19. We recommend using the BinasNOW for patients with symptoms up to 2 weeks.

Accuracy of an antigen-detecting SARS-CoV-2 assay with self- and provider-collected specimens interpreted visually and with BD Veritor™ Plus analyzer.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are in high demand for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Reduced involvement from health care professionals (HCPs) for collection and interpretation could significantly foster the wide-spread implementation of RATs, but data evaluating RATs, when used by lay people, is limited. Objective: To valuate agreement between BD Veritor test results for self- and HCP-collected specimens, and visually- and analyzer-interpreted results. Methods: Individuals with onset of COVID-19 symptoms within five days of enrollment had three nasal swabs collected; one self-collected and the other two HCP-collected. One HCP-collected swab was stored for future testing while the order of the other two (self and HCP) was randomized before testing. with the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Results were first assessed visually, followed by interpretation with the analyzer. Results: When self-collection was compared to HCP collection for SARS-CoV-2 detection, interpretation by analyzer resulted in positive percent agreement (PPA) of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7, 98.5) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 99.0% (95% CI 97.5, 99.6). When visual interpretation was compared to analyzer-read results, collection by HCPs had a PPA of 97.4% (95% CI 86.5, 99.5) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100.0) while self-collection resulted in PPA of 94.9% (95% CI 83.1, 98.6) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100). Conclusions: Similar PPA and NPA were observed for self- and HCP-collected specimens as well as visually- and analyzer-interpreted tests. The equivalence in performance supports the use of expanded collection and testing methods.

Screening for High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Using Passive, Self-Collected Menstrual Blood.

OBJECTIVE: To assess concordance and acceptability of a modified menstrual pad compared with a clinician-collected high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) sample. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Women presenting for either cervical cancer screening or with a history of high-risk HPV positivity were eligible. Three samples were requested from participants: 1) clinician-collected cervical specimens; 2) self-collected vaginal swabs; and 3) a modified menstrual pad, which was taken home for use during the next menstruation. All samples were processed using the Cobas HPV test. Menstrual pad dried blood spots were eluted, then similarly processed. RESULTS: Of 153 women enrolled in the study, 106 provided menstrual pad samples and clinician-collected cervical specimens for high-risk HPV analysis. For samples in which the interval between the clinician-collected specimen and the menstrual pad sample was less than 2 months, the concordance was 94% (95% CI 83-98). For women who tested positive for high-risk HPV who presented for general screening and those with more than cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2, menstrual pad and clinician-collected specimen agreement was 100% (95% CI 32.5-100). Among participants, 22.9% expressed discomfort with the self-collected vaginal swabs and opted out of collection. Overall, 94.0% of participants preferred the menstrual pad over clinician-collected sampling. Twelve patients were found to be positive for HPV on the menstrual pad sample but negative on the clinician-collected specimen. CONCLUSION: Among women who tested positive for HPV, the menstrual pad showed highly concordant results compared with clinician-collected sampling. This collection approach shows promise for integration into cervical cancer prevention programs.

Clinical Evaluation of BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A+B Assay for Point-Of-Care System.

Differential diagnosis of COVID-19 and/or influenza (flu) at point of care is critical for efficient patient management and treatment of both these diseases. The study presented here characterizes the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A+B ("Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu") triplex assay. The performance for SARS-CoV-2 detection was determined using 298 specimens from patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days from symptom onset (DSO) in comparison with the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase PCR) assay ("Lyra SARS-CoV-2") as the reference. The performance for flu A and flu B detection was determined using 75 influenza-positive and 40 influenza-negative retrospective specimens in comparison with the previously FDA-cleared BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B assay ("Veritor Flu") as the reference. The Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu assay met the FDA EUA acceptance criteria (86.7%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 75.8 to 93.1) for SARS-CoV-2 testing compared to Lyra SARS-CoV-2. The Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu assay also demonstrated 100% agreement with the Veritor Flu for Flu A+B assay. For flu A detection, the lower bound of the 95% CI was 91.2%; for flu B detection, the lower bound was 90.0%. The dual detection capability of Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu for the etiologic agents causing COVID-19 and flu will allow efficient differentiation between the two illnesses, inform disease management, and facilitate optimal treatment. IMPORTANCE COVID-19 and flu are two respiratory illnesses which share similar clinical symptoms. The BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu assay has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B, the two etiologic agents causing COVID-19 and flu, respectively. This dual detection capability is critical when overlap occurs between the COVID-19 pandemic and the flu season. This triplex assay will allow efficient differentiation between the two respiratory illnesses and support a point-of-care physician diagnosis to facilitate the proper treatment and disease management for patients exhibiting overlapping symptoms.

Performance Evaluation of the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for the BD MAX System.

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 is the standard approach for confirming COVID-19 cases. This study compared results between two emergency use authorization (EUA) NAATs, with two additional EUA NAATs utilized for discrepant testing. The limits of detection (LOD) for the BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for the BD MAX system (MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay), the bioMérieux BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 (BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay), the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay), and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay Panther (Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay) NAAT systems were determined using a total of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens with 7 target levels for each comparator. The positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay, compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, was evaluated in a postmarket clinical study utilizing 708 nasopharyngeal specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 cases. Discordant testing was achieved using the cobas and BioFire SARS-CoV-2 NAATs. In this study, the measured LOD for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay (251 copies/ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 186 to 427) was comparable to the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (298 copies/ml; 95% CI, 225 to 509) and the BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay (302 copies/ml; 95% CI, 219 to 565); the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay had an LOD of 612 copies/ml (95% CI, 474 to 918). The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay had a PPA of 100% (95% CI, 97.3% to 100.0%) and an NPA of 96.7% (95% CI, 94.9% to 97.9%) compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. The clinical performance of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay agreed with another sensitive EUA assay.

Clinical evaluation of the molecular-based BD SARS-CoV-2/Flu for the BD MAX™ system.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 and influenza (flu) share similar clinical symptoms. Therefore, differential detection of these viruses during the respiratory virus season will be an important component for proper patient triage, management, and treatment. OBJECTIVES: Establish the diagnostic performance related to SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B detection for the BD SARS-CoV-2/Flu for BD MAX™ System ("MAX SARS-CoV-2/Flu") multiplex assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-five (235) retrospective nasopharyngeal specimens were obtained from external vendors. The BD BioGx SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for BD MAX™ System ("BioGx SARS-CoV-2″) and the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV ("Xpert Flu/RSV") were utilized as reference methods. RESULTS: By reference methods, 52 specimens were SARS-CoV-2-positive, 59 were Flu A-positive, and 60 were Flu B-positive. MAX SARS-CoV-2/Flu had positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) values for SARS-CoV-2 detection of 96.2% ([95%CI]:87.0-98.9) and 100% [95%CI:88.7-100], respectively; PPA values for Flu A and Flu B of 100% [95%CI:93.9-100] and 98.3% [95%CI:91.1-99.7], respectively, and NPA values for Flu A and Flu B of 98.9% [95%CI:94.0-99.8] and 100% [95%CI:95.9-100], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MAX SARS-CoV-2/Flu assay met FDA-EUA performance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 (≥95% for PPA and NPA) and FDA clearance criteria for Flu A/B (PPA ≥90%; lower bound of the 95%CI ≥80% and NPA ≥95%; lower bound of the 95%CI ≥90%).

BIOlogical Factors that Limit sustAined Remission in rhEumatoid arthritis (the BIO-FLARE study): protocol for a non-randomised longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Our knowledge of immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) aetiology and pathogenesis has improved greatly over recent years, however, very little is known of the factors that trigger disease relapses (flares), converting diseases from inactive to active states. Focussing on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the challenge that we will address is why IMIDs remit and relapse. Extrapolating from pathogenetic factors involved in disease initiation, new episodes of inflammation could be triggered by recurrent systemic immune dysregulation or locally by factors within the joint, either of which could be endorsed by overarching epigenetic factors or changes in systemic or localised metabolism. METHODS: The BIO-FLARE study is a non-randomised longitudinal cohort study that aims to enrol 150 patients with RA in remission on a stable dose of non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), who consent to discontinue treatment. Participants stop their DMARDs at time 0 and are offered an optional ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy. They are studied intensively, with blood sampling and clinical evaluation at weeks 0, 2, 5, 8, 12 and 24. It is anticipated that 50% of participants will have a disease flare, whilst 50% remain in drug-free remission for the study duration (24 weeks). Flaring participants undergo an ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy before reinstatement of previous treatment. Blood samples will be used to investigate immune cell subsets, their activation status and their cytokine profile, autoantibody profiles and epigenetic profiles. Synovial biopsies will be examined to profile cell lineages and subtypes present at flare. Blood, urine and synovium will be examined to determine metabolic profiles. Taking into account all generated data, multivariate statistical techniques will be employed to develop a model to predict impending flare in RA, highlighting therapeutic pathways and informative biomarkers. Despite initial recruitment to time and target, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has impacted significantly, and a decision was taken to close recruitment at 118 participants with complete data. DISCUSSION: This study aims to investigate the pathogenesis of flare in rheumatoid arthritis, which is a significant knowledge gap in our understanding, addressing a major unmet patient need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on 27/06/2019 in the ISRCTN registry 16371380 .

A Rapid, High-Sensitivity SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Immunoassay to Aid Diagnosis of Acute COVID-19 at the Point of Care: A Clinical Performance Study.

INTRODUCTION: The LumiraDx severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test, which uses a high-sensitivity, microfluidic immunoassay to detect the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2, was evaluated for diagnosing acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults and children across point-of-care settings (NCT04557046). METHODS: Two paired anterior nasal swabs or two paired nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each participant. Swabs were tested by the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 antigen test and compared with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR; Roche cobas 6800 platform). Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios were calculated. Results were stratified on the basis of gender, age, duration of symptoms, and rt-PCR cycle threshold. RESULTS: Out of the 512 participants, aged 0-90 years, of this prospective validation study, 414 (81%) were symptomatic for COVID-19 and 123 (24%) swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on rt-PCR testing. Compared with rt-PCR, the 12-min nasal swab test had 97.6% sensitivity and 96.6% specificity, and nasopharyngeal swab had 97.5% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity, within 12 days of symptom onset, representing the period of infectivity. All (100%) samples detected within 33 rt-PCR cycles were also identified using the antigen test. Results were consistent across age and gender. The user error rate of the test system when used by minimally trained operators was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-3.7%). CONCLUSION: The rapid, high-sensitivity assay using nasopharyngeal or anterior nasal sampling may offer significant improvements for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in clinic- and community-based settings.

Clinical Evaluation of BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Test Performance Compared to PCR-Based Testing and versus the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen Point-of-Care Test.

The clinical performance of the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (Veritor), a chromatographic immunoassay used for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing, was evaluated using nasal specimens from individuals with COVID-19 symptoms. Two studies were completed to determine clinical performance. In the first study, nasal specimens and either nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens from 251 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset [DSO], ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare Veritor with the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (Lyra). In the second study, nasal specimens from 361 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤5 DSO, ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare performance of Veritor to that of the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2). The positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) were the primary outcomes. In study 1, the PPA for Veritor, compared to Lyra, ranged from 81.8 to 87.5% across the 0 to 1 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges. In study 2, Veritor had PPA, NPA, and OPA values of 97.4, 98.1, and 98.1%, respectively, with Sofia 2. Discordant analysis showed one Lyra positive missed by Veritor and five Lyra positives missed by Sofia 2; one Veritor positive result was negative by Lyra. Veritor met FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing for the 0 to 5 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges (PPA values of 83.9% and 82.4%, respectively). Veritor and Sofia 2 showed a high degree of agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Veritor test allows for more rapid COVID-19 testing utilizing easy-to-collect nasal swabs but demonstrated <100% PPA compared to PCR.

Multicenter Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel for Detection of Viruses and Bacteria in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens.

The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel (QIAstat-Dx RP) is a multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative detection of 20 pathogens directly from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. The assay is performed using a simple sample-to-answer platform with results available in approximately 69 min. The pathogens identified are adenovirus, coronavirus 229E, coronavirus HKU1, coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43, human metapneumovirus A and B, influenza A, influenza A H1, influenza A H3, influenza A H1N1/2009, influenza B, parainfluenza virus 1, parainfluenza virus 2, parainfluenza virus 3, parainfluenza virus 4, rhinovirus/enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus A and B, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae This multicenter evaluation provides data obtained from 1,994 prospectively collected and 310 retrospectively collected (archived) NPS specimens with performance compared to that of the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel, version 1.7. The overall percent agreement between QIAstat-Dx RP and the comparator testing was 99.5%. In the prospective cohort, the QIAstat-Dx RP demonstrated a positive percent agreement of 94.0% or greater for the detection of all but four analytes: coronaviruses 229E, NL63, and OC43 and rhinovirus/enterovirus. The test also demonstrated a negative percent agreement of ≥97.9% for all analytes. The QIAstat-Dx RP is a robust and accurate assay for rapid, comprehensive testing for respiratory pathogens.