Rapid Diagnostics in Infection Prevention

There are several relevant pathogens in healthcare today that are easily transmissible among populations and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In order to decrease transmission, it is important to identify infected patients quickly so that infection prevention techniques can be employed. Rapid diagnostic tests assist with this as they often produce results 24-48 h faster than traditional culture and sensitivity methods. This chapter discusses the benefits and limitations of rapid diagnostic tests overall, as well as considerations for rapid diagnostics for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), Clostridioides difficile, Candida auris, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and influenza. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022.

Trends of respiratory virus detection in point-of-care testing: A review.

In resource-limited conditions such as the COVID-19 pandemic, on-site detection of diseases using the Point-of-care testing (POCT) technique is becoming a key factor in overcoming crises and saving lives. For practical POCT in the field, affordable, sensitive, and rapid medical testing should be performed on simple and portable platforms, instead of laboratory facilities. In this review, we introduce recent approaches to the detection of respiratory virus targets, analysis trends, and prospects. Respiratory viruses occur everywhere and are one of the most common and widely spreading infectious diseases in the human global society. Seasonal influenza, avian influenza, coronavirus, and COVID-19 are examples of such diseases. On-site detection and POCT for respiratory viruses are state-of-the-art technologies in this field and are commercially valuable global healthcare topics. Cutting-edge POCT techniques have focused on the detection of respiratory viruses for early diagnosis, prevention, and monitoring to protect against the spread of COVID-19. In particular, we highlight the application of sensing techniques to each platform to reveal the challenges of the development stage. Recent POCT approaches have been summarized in terms of principle, sensitivity, analysis time, and convenience for field applications. Based on the analysis of current states, we also suggest the remaining challenges and prospects for the use of the POCT technique for respiratory virus detection to improve our protection ability and prevent the next pandemic.

Advances in TB testing

Globally, tuberculosis (TB) was the leading cause of death from a single infectious agent until the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In 2020, an estimated 10 million people fell ill with TB and a total of 1.5 million people died from the disease. About one-quarter of the global population, almost two billion people, is estimated to be latently infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB). Although latent TB infection (LTBI) is asymptomatic and noncontagious, about 5–10% of LTBI patients have a lifetime risk of progression to active TB. The diagnosis and treatment of active cases are extremely vital for TB control programs. However, achieving the End TB goal of 2035 without the ability to identify and treat the pool of latently infected individuals will be a big challenge. To do so, improved technology to provide more accurate diagnostic tools and accessibility are crucial. Therefore, this chapter covers the current WHO-endorsed tests and advances in diagnostic and screening tests for active and latent TB. © 2023

Evaluation of the Visby medical COVID-19 point of care nucleic acid amplification test.

Rapid and widespread diagnostic testing is critical to providing timely patient care and reducing transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Recently, the Visby Medical COVID-19 point of care (POC) test was granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid at the point of care. We evaluated its performance characteristics using residual specimens (n = 100) collected from Mayo Clinic patients using nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and placed in viral transport media (VTM). The same specimen was tested using both the laboratory reference method (RT-qPCR) and Visby test. The reference methods utilized included a laboratory developed test with EUA (Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Rochester, MN) using the TaqMan assay on a Roche Light Cycler 480 or a commercially available EUA platform (cobas® SARS-CoV-2; Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). Positive, negative, and overall percent agreement between the Visby COVID-19 test and the reference method were calculated. Additionally, the limit of detection (LoD) claimed by the manufacturer (1112 copies/mL) was verified with serial dilutions of heat inactivated virus. The Visby COVID-19 test correctly identified 29/30 positive samples and 69/70 negative samples, resulting in an overall concordance of 98.0%, positive percent agreement of 96.7%, and negative percent agreement of 98.6%. The abbreviated LoD experiment showed that the analytical sensitivity of the method is as low as or lower than 500 copies/mL. Our study demonstrated that Visby COVID-19 is well-suited to address rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing needs. It has high concordance with central laboratory-based RT-qPCR methods, a low rate of invalid results, and superior analytical sensitivity to some other EUA POC devices.

Medical appropriateness and economics of nucleic acid amplification testing for infectious diseases.

It has become commonplace to assume that nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) represent the gold standard for all infectious disease diagnostic testing. This proposition has become increasingly entrenched recently, as these tests can now be done, in comparison to even just a few years ago, relatively inexpensively and with rapid analytic turnaround times. Many can even be performed at the point of care by individuals without technical backgrounds. But there may be a dark underside to this proposition. Could these tests be too sensitive? Are they always "fit for purpose"? Should they trump clinical judgement? Do they have untoward impacts on antimicrobial therapy? Could the profit motive - by manufacturers and by laboratories - be fueling the explosive expansion of NAATs? In this article, we will explore these questions in regard to several specific NAAT examples - Group A Streptococcus, Influenza, SARS-CoV-2, respiratory panels, and sexually transmitted disease panels.

Performance of point-of care molecular and antigen-based tests for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. OBJECTIVES: The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. PARTICIPANTS: Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. TEST/S: Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. REFERENCE STANDARD: Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9-95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6-98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2-73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5-99.2%), respectively. DISCUSSION: Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.

Diagnostic test property of transcription-reverse transcription concerted reaction reagent TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i using nasopharyngeal swab samples

TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i is a reagent for transcription-reverse transcription concerted reaction (TRC) to detect SARS-CoV-2 N2 gene, used with the automated rapid isothermal nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) analyzer TRCReady®-80. Sensitivity and specificity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i was assessed by comparison with the results of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using nasopharyngeal swab samples. From November 2020 to March 2021, a total of 441 nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained and analyzed both with TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i and RT-PCR. Sensitivity and specificity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i were 94.6% (53/56) and 99.2% (382/385), respectively. Reaction time to positivity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i ranged from 1.166 to 9.805 (median: 2.887) min, and minimum detection sensitivity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i was 9 copies per test, with reaction time as 5.014 min. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 gene from nasopharyngeal swab sample using TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i shows comparative diagnostic test accuracy with RT-PCR, and can be used as a useful test to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection. © 2022 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases

A comparative study of isothermal nucleic acid amplification methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection at point-of-care

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has put most of the world under lockdown. Despite approved vaccines, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have remained on the rise. Rapid diagnosis and necessary public health measures are still key parts to contain the pandemic. Here, the colorimetric isothermal nucleic acid amplification tests (iNAATs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), cross-priming amplification (CPA), and polymerase spiral reaction (PSR) were designed and compared in performance for the first time. The findings showed that, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 genomic-RNA, LAMP outperformed both CPA and PSR, reaction mix exhibiting the limit of detection (LOD) of roughly 43.14 copies/reaction. The results can be read with the naked eye within 45 minutes, without cross-reactivity to closely related coronaviruses. The direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in simulated specimens by iNAATs was also successful. Additionally, the lyophilized reagents for LAMP reactions maintained the sensitivity and LOD of the liquid assays. The colorimetric LAMP assay was validated using clinical samples, showing 98.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity upon using extracted samples and 82.4% sensitivity and 86.2% specificity upon using unextracted specimens. The results indicate that the direct colorimetric LAMP assay developed is highly suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2 at point-of-care.

Characteristics of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron BA.2 Subvariant in Jilin, China from March to May 2022.

Background and Objectives: In the midst of the pandemic, new coronavirus mutants continue to emerge; the most relevant variant worldwide is omicron. Here, patients who recovered from the disease living in Jilin Province were analyzed to identify factors affecting the severity of omicron infection and to provide insights into its spread and early indication. Methods: In this study, 311 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were divided into two groups. Data on the patients' demographic characteristics and laboratory tests, including platelet count (PLT), neutrophil count (NE), C-reactive protein (CRP), serum creatinine (SCR), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), were collected. The biomarkers for moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and factors affecting the incubation period and time to subsequent negative nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) were also investigated. Results: Age, gender, vaccination, hypertension, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/chronic bronchitis/asthma, and some laboratory tests were statistically different between the two groups. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, PLT and CRP had higher area under the ROC curve values. In the multivariate analysis, age, hypertension, COPD/chronic bronchitis/asthma, and CRP were correlated with moderate and severe COVID-19. Moreover, age was correlated with longer incubation. In the Kaplan-Meier curve analysis, gender (male), CRP, and NLR were associated with longer time to subsequent negative NAAT. Conclusions: Older patients with hypertension and lung diseases were likely to have moderate or severe COVID-19, and younger patients might have a shorter incubation. A male patient with high CRP and NLR levels might take more time to turn back negative in the NAAT.

Clinical evaluation of a fully automated and high-throughput molecular testing system for detection of influenza virus.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the performance of the cobas® 6800 system and cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B, a fully automated molecular testing system for influenza viruses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This enabled an assay in a batch of 96 samples in approximately 3 h. METHODS: An assay was performed using the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B on the cobas 6800 system for samples collected in four facilities between November 2019 and March 2020 in our previous study. The results were compared with those obtained using the reference methods. RESULTS: Of the 127 samples analyzed, the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B detected influenza A virus in 75 samples, of which 73 were positive using the reference methods. No false negative results were observed. The overall positive and negative percent agreement for influenza A virus detection were 100.0% and 96.3%, respectively. There were no positive results for the influenza B virus or SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The cobas 6800 system and cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B showed high accuracy for influenza A virus detection and can be useful for clinical laboratories, especially those that routinely assay many samples.

Diagnostic test property of transcription-reverse transcription concerted reaction reagent TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i using nasopharyngeal swab samples

TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i is a reagent for transcription-reverse transcription concerted reaction (TRC) to detect SARS-CoV-2 N2 gene, used with the automated rapid isothermal nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) analyzer TRCReady®-80. Sensitivity and specificity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i was assessed by comparison with the results of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using nasopharyngeal swab samples. From November 2020 to March 2021, a total of 441 nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained and analyzed both with TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i and RT-PCR. Sensitivity and specificity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i were 94.6% (53/56) and 99.2% (382/385), respectively. Reaction time to positivity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i ranged from 1.166 to 9.805 (median: 2.887) minutes, and minimum detection sensitivity of TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i was 9 copies per test, with reaction time as 5.014 minutes. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 gene from nasopharyngeal swab sample using TRCReady® SARS-CoV-2 i shows comparative diagnostic test accuracy with RT-PCR, and can be used as a useful test to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Viral load may impact the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs in nucleic acid amplification test and quantitative antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

INTRODUCTION: Compared to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), there has been insufficient evaluation of the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs (NS) for the detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (QAT). METHODS: We prospectively compared healthcare worker-collected and flocked NS within nine days after symptom onset to paired NPS to detect SARS-CoV-2 in NAAT and QAT on the fully automated Lumipulse system. The agreement between sample types was evaluated, and cycle threshold (Ct) values and antigen levels were used as surrogate viral load measures. RESULTS: Sixty sets of NPS and NS samples were collected from 40 patients with COVID-19. The overall agreements between NAAT and QAT samples were 76.7% and 65.0%, respectively. In NAAT, the Ct value of NS was significantly higher, 5.9, than that of NPS. Thirty-nine (95.1%) NS tested positive in 41 positive-paired NPS with Ct ≤ 30. The negative correlation was observed between antigen levels of NS in QAT and Ct values of NS in NAAT (r = -0.88). In QAT, the antigen level of NS was significantly lower than that of NPS. Thirty-six (90.0%) NS tested positive in 40 positive-paired NPS with antigen levels >100 pg/mL, which were collected significantly earlier than those with antigen levels ≤100 pg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: In NAAT and QAT, NS had limited performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared to NPS. However, NS may be helpful for patients with COVID-19 with high viral loads or those in the early stages of the illness.

Quantitative analysis of RT-PCR test results for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics across Poland during COVID-19 pandemic: Comparison between early stage and major pandemic waves in 2020 and 2021 with reference to SARS-CoV-2 variants.

PURPOSE: From April to September 2020, Poland was minimally affected by COVID-19 compared to other EU countries. We aimed to investigate the risks of false reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results during the first wave (compared to later waves), that rises when cycle threshold (Ct) of positive result is close to limit of detection (LOD). MATERIALS/METHODS: We analyzed Ct values of SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR results of 7726 patients in Poland from April-September 2020. SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR results of 14,534 patients in the 2nd-3rd wave and 10,861 patients in the 4th-5th pandemic waves were used. Statistical analysis was based on one-way analysis of variance. To verify, 95% confidence intervals with Bonferroni correction were computed. Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 variants in Poland was analyzed using Whole Genome Sequencing from 923 (3.6%) patients. RESULTS: The mean Ct of RT-PCR positive test results analyzed ranged between 22.89 and 26.71 depending on the month of the results collection. The differences between months were significant (p â€‹< â€‹0.001). Differences in Ct were observed between age groups, with younger patients displaying higher Ct values, however, major trends over time were paralleled between age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The mean Ct of the tested RT-PCR positive test results was lower than 35 which is considered an upper borderline for reliable positive results of the assay. Therefore, most COVID-19 cases recorded in Poland from April to September 2020 were detected with minor risks of inaccuracy. Data from a single center exhibited greater consistency for both virus Ct level and SARS-CoV-2 virus variant identification.

ULTRA-RAPID REAL-TIME MICROFLUIDIC POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION INSTRUMENT FOR CLINICAL AND FORENSIC APPLICATIONS

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has elevated the development of novel diagnostic solutions, including rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), to a global priority to meet the high demand for accurate, timely viral detection and diagnosis. However, ubiquitously implemented NAATs, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), consume hours of testing. We report a field-forward instrument capable of ultra-fast real-time PCR for amplification-based nucleic acid detection in a custom-designed microfluidic chip. Prudent selection and unconventional positioning of thermal cyclers relative to the microfluidic chip and a fluorescent detector permit ultra-fast simultaneous amplification and detection, with 40 cycles complete in under 10 minutes. © 2021 MicroTAS 2021 - 25th International Conference on Miniaturized Systems for Chemistry and Life Sciences. All rights reserved.

Progression of LAMP as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is PCR Finally Rivaled?

Reflecting on the past three years and the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, varying global tactics offer insights into the most effective public-health responses. In the US, specifically, rapid and widespread testing was quickly prioritized to lower restrictions sooner. Essentially, only two types of COVID-19 diagnostic tests were publicly employed during the peak pandemic: the rapid antigen test and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, neither test ideally suited the situation, as rapid antigen tests are far too inaccurate, and RT-PCR tests require skilled personnel and sophisticated equipment, leading to long wait times. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is another exceptionally accurate nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) that offers far quicker time to results. However, RT-LAMP COVID-19 tests have not been embraced as extensively as rapid antigen tests or RT-PCR. This review will investigate the performance of current RT-LAMP-based COVID-19 tests and summarize the reasons behind the hesitancy to embrace RT-LAMP instead of RT-PCR. We will also look at other LAMP platforms to explore possible improvements in the accuracy and portability of LAMP, which could be applied to COVID-19 diagnostics and future public-health outbreaks.

Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

The number of SARS-CoV-2 detection tests requested to the laboratories has dramatically increased together with an urgent need to release reliable responses in a very short time. The two options taken into consideration and analyzed in the current study were the point-of-care test (POCT) based on the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and the Antigen (Ag) rapid test. The POCT-NAAT-based assay was compared with a rapid antigen test of nasopharyngeal swab samples. If the specimen tested positive, it was followed by viral load quantification and by the functional assessment of the residual infectivity. When the initial cycle threshold (Ct) was below 20 (100%), and in the range of 20-25 (92%) and of 25-30 (88%), a great concordance between the POCT-NAAT and the Ag test was observed. Moreover, the positivity of the antigen test was well correlated to a successful infection in vitro (78%), with greater concordance when the initial Ct below 20 or above 35 (100%) and in the range 20-25 (83%). Our findings showed that most of the swabs which tested positive using the antigen test were able to infect the cells in vitro, suggesting that probably only these samples hold residual infectivity and therefore an increased risk of virus transmission at the moment of being tested.

Evaluation of the Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Influenza A Virus, Influenza B Virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has introduced a new challenge in diagnosing and differentiating respiratory infections. Accurate diagnosis of respiratory infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is complicated by overlapping symptomology, and stepwise approaches to testing for each infection would lead to increased reagent usage and cost, as well as delays in clinical interventions. To avoid these issues, multiplex molecular assays have been developed to differentiate between respiratory viruses in a single test to meet clinical diagnostic needs. To evaluate the analytical performance of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA)-approved Abbott Alinity m resp-4-plex assay (Alinity m) in testing for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), we compared its performance to those of both the EUA-approved Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B virus, and RSV assay (Xpert Xpress) and the EUA-approved Roche Cobas SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B virus assay (Cobas) in a single-center retrospective analysis. High concordance was observed among all three assays, with kappa statistics showing an almost perfect agreement (>0.90). The limit of detection (LOD) results for SARS-CoV-2 showed the Alinity m exhibiting the lowest LOD at 26 copies/mL, followed by the Cobas at 58 copies/mL and the Xpert Xpress at 83 copies/mL, with LOD results for the influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and RSV viral targets also showing equivalent or better performance on the Alinity m compared to the other two platforms. The Alinity m can be used as a high-volume testing platform for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and RSV and exhibits analytical performance comparable to those of both the Xpert Xpress and Cobas assays. IMPORTANCE The rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has introduced a new challenge in diagnosing and differentiating respiratory infections, especially considering the overlapping symptomology of many of these infections and differences in clinical interventions depending on the pathogen identified. To avoid these issues, multiplex molecular assays like the one described in this article need to be developed to differentiate between the most common respiratory pathogens in a single test and most effectively meet clinical diagnostic needs.

Clinical evaluation of the rapid nucleic acid amplification point-of-care test (Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2) in the analysis of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples.

INTRODUCTION: Smart Gene is a point-of-care (POC)-type automated molecular testing platform that can be performed with 1 min of hands-on-time. Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 is a newly developed Smart Gene molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The analytical and clinical performance of Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 has not been evaluated. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples were prospectively collected from subjects referred to the local PCR center from March 25 to July 5, 2021. Two swabs were simultaneously obtained for the Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 assay and the reference real-time RT-PCR assay, and the results of Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 were compared to the reference real-time RT-PCR assay. RESULTS: Among a total of 1150 samples, 68 of 791 nasopharyngeal samples and 51 of 359 anterior nasal samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the reference real-time RT-PCR assay. In the testing of nasopharyngeal samples, Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed the total, positive and negative concordance of 99.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.4-99.7%), 94.1% (95% CI: 85.6-98.4%) and 99.7% (95% CI: 99.0-100%), respectively. For anterior nasal samples, Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed the total, positive and negative concordance of 98.9% (95% CI: 97.2-99.7%), 98.0% (95% CI: 89.6-100%) and 99.0% (95% CI: 97.2-99.8%), respectively. In total, 5 samples were positive in the reference real-time RT-PCR assay and negative in the Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 assay, whereas 5 samples were negative in the reference real-time RT-PCR assay and positive in the Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 assay. CONCLUSION: Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed sufficient analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples.

Indications for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test for areas with low endemicity.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal indication for the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) in areas with low endemicity for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. This study aimed to identify patients who should undergo the NAAT for COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients with suspected COVID-19 who underwent NAAT between October 5, 2020, and May 31, 2021 in our institution. RESULTS: A total of 1238 patients were enrolled and NAAT positive results were observed in 40 patients (3.2%). The NAAT positivity rate was 34.3% (23/67) in patients with a history of close contact and 1.5% (17/1171) in patients without a history of close contact. Olfactory/gustatory dysfunction and a history of stay in other prefectures were independent risk factors of COVID-19 in patients without a history of close contact. On the other hand, the NAAT positivity rate was only 0.7% (8/1073) in patients without olfactory/gustatory dysfunction and a history of stay in other prefectures. Among them, the group without respiratory symptoms/sign had only one NAAT-positive case (0.1%: 1/1073). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that a history of close contact, olfactory/gustatory dysfunction, and a history of stay in other prefectures are key eligibility criteria for NAAT in areas with relatively few patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, NAAT may not be necessary in cases without all of these factors and respiratory symptoms/sign.

Tracking SARS-CoV-2: Novel Trends and Diagnostic Strategies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on economies and health systems globally, therefore a top priority is the development of increasingly better diagnostic and surveillance alternatives to slow down the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In order to establish massive testing and contact tracing policies, it is crucial to have a clear view of the diagnostic options available and their principal advantages and drawbacks. Although classical molecular methods such as RT-qPCR are broadly used, diagnostic alternatives based on technologies such as LAMP, antigen, serological testing, or the application of novel technologies such as CRISPR-Cas for diagnostics, are also discussed. The present review also discusses the most important automation strategies employed to increase testing capability. Several serological-based diagnostic kits are presented, as well as novel nanotechnology-based diagnostic methods. In summary, this review provides a clear diagnostic landscape of the most relevant tools to track COVID-19.