Recent Advances in Imported Malaria Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management.

Purpose of Review: Malaria is an important human parasitic disease affecting the population of tropical, subtropical regions as well as travelers to these areas.The purpose of this article is to provide clinicians practicing in non-endemic areas with a comprehensive overview of the recent data on microbiologic and pathophysiologic features of five Plasmodium parasites, clinical presentation of uncomplicated and severe cases, modern diagnostic methods, and treatment of malaria. Recent Findings: Employment of robust surveillance programs, rapid diagnostic tests, highly active artemisinin-based therapy, and the first malaria vaccine have led to decline in malaria incidence; however, emerging drug resistance, disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and other socio-economic factors have stalled the progress. Summary: Clinicians practicing in non-endemic areas such as the United States should consider a diagnosis of malaria in returning travelers presenting with fever, utilize rapid diagnostic tests if available at their practice locations in addition to microscopy, and timely initiate guideline-directed management as delays in treatment can lead to poor clinical outcomes.

Virus variant-specific clinical performance of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test with focus on Omicron variants of concern.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) play an important role in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. They are easier, quicker, and less expensive than the 'reference standard' RT-PCR and therefore widely in use. Reliable clinical data with respect to Ag-RDT performance in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants of concern (VOCs) are limited. Consequently, the objective of this study was to determine the impact different VOCs-especially Omicron-have on the clinical performance of an Ag-RDT. METHODS: We compared the clinical performance of the Sofia SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT to RT-PCR in a real-world, single-centre study in a clinical point-of-care setting in patients admitted to a large hospital via the emergency department from 2 November 2020 to 4 September 2022. RESULTS: Among 38 434 Ag-RDT/RT-PCR tandems taken, 1528 yielded a SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR test result, with a prevalence of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.8-4.2). Overall sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was 63.7% (95% CI, 61.3-66.1) and overall specificity was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.5-99.6). Ag-RDT sensitivity was dependent on viral load (VL), because the sensitivity increased to 93.2% (95% CI, 91.5-94.6) in samples with a VL > 106 SARS-CoV-2 copies/mL. Furthermore, the Ag-RDT was more sensitive in men, and older patients. Variant-dependent sensitivity assessment showed that the sensitivity was significantly lower in Omicron-VOC (64.1%; 95% CI, 60.5-67.6) compared with SARS-CoV-2 wild-type samples (70.0%; 95% CI, 59,8-78,6) (binomial test; p value < 0.001). Analysing the limits of detection showed a 27 times higher 95% limit of detection for the Omicron-VOC BA.5 compared with the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. DISCUSSION: Ag-RDT sensitivity for detection of patients with lower VLs and with Omicron-VOC is reduced, limiting the effectiveness of Ag-RDTs. However, Ag-RDTs are still an unreplaceable tool for widely available, quick, and inexpensive point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen-Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19.

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect antigen indicative of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can help in making quick health care decisions and regularly monitoring groups at risk of infection. With many RDT products entering the market, it is important to rapidly evaluate their relative performance. Comparison of clinical evaluation study results is challenged by protocol design variations and study populations. Laboratory assays were developed to quantify nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Quantification of the two antigens in nasal eluates confirmed higher abundance of N than S antigen. The median concentration of N antigen was 10 times greater than S per genome equivalent. The N antigen assay was used in combination with quantitative reverse transcription (RT)-PCR to qualify a panel composed of recombinant antigens, inactivated virus, and clinical specimen pools. This benchmarking panel was applied to evaluate the analytical performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test, Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag test, and the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag test. The four tests displayed different sensitivities toward the different panel members, but all performed best with the clinical specimen pool. The concentration for a 90% probability of detection across the four tests ranged from 21 to 102 pg/mL of N antigen in the extracted sample. Benchmarking panels provide a quick way to verify the baseline performance of a diagnostic and enable direct comparisons between diagnostic tests. IMPORTANCE This study reports the results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) antigen quantification assays and their performance against clinical reverse transcription (RT)-PCR results, thus describing an open-access quantification method for two important SARS-CoV-2 protein analytes. Characterized N antigen panels were used to evaluate the limits of detection of four different rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 against multiple sources of nucleocapsid antigen, demonstrating proof-of-concept materials and methodology to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests. Quantification of N antigen was used to characterize the relationship between viral count and antigen concentration among clinical samples and panel members of both clinical sample and viral culture origin. This contributes to a deeper understanding of protein antigen and molecular analytes and presents analytical methods complementary to clinical evaluation for characterizing the performance of both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of the analytical sensitivity of ACON and LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests using samples with presumed Omicron variant.

BACKGROUND: Analytical sensitivity of 2 rapid antigen tests was evaluated for detection of presumed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants and earlier variants of concern. METHODS: A total of 152 SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive samples (N and ORF1ab positive but S gene negative) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antigen by ACON lateral flow and LumiraDx fluorescence immunoassays. Sensitivity within 3 viral load ranges was compared among these 152 samples and 194 similarly characterized samples collected prior to the circulation of the Delta variant (pre-Delta). RESULTS: Antigen was detected in >95% of pre-Delta and presumed Omicron samples for both tests at viral loads >500,000 copies/mL, and 65 to 85% of samples with 50,000-500,000 copies/mL. At viral load <50,000 copies/mL, antigen tests showed better sensitivity in detecting pre-Delta compared to Omicron variants. LumiraDx was more sensitive than ACON at low viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests had decreased sensitivity for detecting presumed Omicron compared to pre-Delta variants at low viral load.

Antigen rapid diagnostic test monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Routine testing for cancer patients not presenting COVID-19-related symptoms and fully vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 prior to cancer treatment is controversial. METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated whether antigen-rapid-diagnostic-test (Ag-RDT) monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in a large cohort of consecutive asymptomatic (absence of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat or nasal congestion) and fully vaccinated cancer patients enrolled in a short period during cancer treatment has an impact on the therapeutic path of cancer patients. RESULTS: From December 27, 2021, to February 11, 2022, 2439 cancer patients were screened through Ag-RDT for SARS-CoV-2 before entering the hospital for systemic treatment. Fifty-three patients (2.17%) tested positive, of whom 7 (13.2%) subsequently developed COVID-related symptoms, generally mild. Cancer treatment was discontinued, as a precaution, in 49 patients (92.5%) due to the test positivity. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 screening in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients during systemic treatment appeared to be not cost-effective: the low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and the low percentage of overt associated infection do not seem proportional to the direct costs (nursing work for swabs, costs of materials and patient monitoring) and indirect costs (dedicated rooms, extension of waiting times for patients and oncologists in delivering therapy as well as its discontinuation in the positive ones). It can, on the other hand, be detrimental when systemic cancer treatment is suspended as a precaution. Given the small number of patients testing positive and the rapid and favorable trend of the infection, it is recommended to always consider continuing systemic oncological treatment, especially when this impacts patient survival as in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

Point-of-Care Biosensors for Healthcare Applications

In the healthcare sector, biosensors have been extensively used to detect pathogens, antigens, and biomarkers for different diseases/ailments from various biological samples like blood serum, plasma, urine, saliva, faecal matter, etc. Point-of-care (POC) biosensors are scaled down to compact devices that can detect diseases next to the patient to reduce the therapeutic turnaround time. Determination of blood sugar level for diabetes monitoring is the most widely used and commercially available, self-usable POC biosensor. Although biosensors exist for various diseases, there is still a challenge of making them POC because of characteristic requirements of the bioreceptors, such as the storage conditions, and fabrication techniques. Cardiovascular diseases, neural disease (stress), kidney disease, urinary tract infection, and other viral infections are some diseases that can be detected using a biosensor. POC biosensors are available for detecting some of these diseases. This book chapter discusses different POC biosensors for all the prominent diseases and conditions. A good number of rapid POC devices for mass testing and detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were quickly developed, which helped in controlling the pandemic. Handheld electronic device systems to display the outputs and results of the biosensors are also available for many of the biosensors. The advancement of the Internet of things (IoT) made these biosensor devices linkable with a smartphone to make delivery of results possible for the doctors to analyse. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022.

Point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostics powered by lateral flow assay.

Since its first discovery in December 2019, the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has been posing a serious threat to human life and health. Diagnostic testing is critical for the control and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, diagnostic testing at the point of care (POC) has been widely accepted as part of the post restriction COVID-19 control strategy. Lateral flow assay (LFA) is a popular POC diagnostic platform that plays an important role in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic in industrialized countries and resource-limited settings. Numerous pioneering studies on the design and development of diverse LFA-based diagnostic technologies for the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 have been done and reported by researchers. Hundreds of LFA-based diagnostic prototypes have sprung up, some of which have been developed into commercial test kits for the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19. In this review, we summarize the crucial role of rapid diagnostic tests using LFA in targeting SARS-CoV-2-specific RNA, antibodies, antigens, and whole virus. Then, we discuss the design principle and working mechanisms of these available LFA methods, emphasizing their clinical diagnostic efficiency. Ultimately, we elaborate the challenges of current LFA diagnostics for COVID-19 and highlight the need for continuous improvement in rapid diagnostic tests.

Fluorophore-encapsulated nanobeads for on-site, rapid, and sensitive lateral flow assay.

Since December 2019, the rapid and sensitive detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a priority for public health. Although the lateral flow assay (LFA) sensor has emerged as a rapid and on-site SARS-CoV-2 detection technique, the conventional approach of using gold nanoparticles for the signaling probe had limitations in increasing the sensitivity of the sensor. Herein, our newly suggested methodology to improve the performance of the LFA system could amplify the sensor signal with a facile fabrication method by concentrating fluorescent organic molecules. A large Stokes shift fluorophore (single benzene) was encapsulated into polystyrene nanobeads to enhance the fluorescence intensity of the probe for LFA sensor, which was detected on the test line with a longpass filter under ultraviolet light irradiation. This approach provides comparatively high sensitivity with the limit of detection of 1 ng mL-1 for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and a fast detection process, which takes less than 20 min. Furthermore, our sensor showed higher performance than gold nanoparticle-based commercial rapid diagnostics test kits in clinical tests, proving that this approach is more suitable and reliable for the sensitive and rapid detection of viruses, bacteria, and other hazardous materials.

Regional Evaluation of Two SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests in East Africa.

The clinical performance of two rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) were regionally evaluated in East African populations. Swabs were collected from 1,432 individuals from five Partner States of the East African Community (Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and South Sudan). The two rapid antigen tests (Bionote NowCheck COVID-19 Ag and SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag) were evaluated against the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by the Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) gold standard. Of the concordant results with both RT-PCR and rapid antigen test data (862 for Bionote and 852 for SD Biosensor), overall clinical sensitivity was 60% and 50% for the Bionote NowCheck and the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q, respectively. Stratification by viral load, including samples with RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) of <25, improved sensitivity to 90% for both rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Overall specificity was good at 99% for both antigen tests. Taken together, the clinical performance of both Ag-RDTs in real world settings within the East African target population was lower than has been reported elsewhere and below the acceptable levels for sensitivity of >80%, as defined by the WHO. Therefore, the rapid antigen test alone should not be used for diagnosis but could be used as part of an algorithm to identify potentially infectious individuals with high viral load. IMPORTANCE Accurate diagnostic tests are essential to both support the management and containment of outbreaks, as well as inform appropriate patient care. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-RDTs) played a major role in this function, enabling widespread testing by untrained individuals, both at home and within health facilities. In East Africa, a number of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs are available; however, there remains little information on their true test performance within the region, in the hands of the health workers routinely carrying out SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. This study contributes test performance data for two commonly used SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs in East Africa, which will help inform the use of these RDTs within the region.

Virus variant-specific clinical performance of SARS coronavirus two rapid antigen tests in point-of-care use, from November 2020 to January 2022.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are quick, widely available, and inexpensive. Consequently, RDTs have been established as an alternative and additional diagnostic strategy to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). However, reliable clinical and large-scale performance data specific to a SARS-CoV-2 virus variant of concern (VOC) are limited, especially for the Omicron VOC. The aim of this study was to compare RDT performance among different VOCs. METHODS: This single-centre prospective performance assessment compared RDTs from three manufacturers (NADAL, Panbio, MEDsan) with RT-qPCR including deduced standardized viral load from oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical point-of-care setting from November 2020 to January 2022. RESULTS: Among 35 479 RDT/RT-qPCR tandems taken from 26 940 individuals, 164 of the 426 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested true positive with an RDT corresponding to an RDT sensitivity of 38.50% (95% CI, 34.00-43.20%), with an overall specificity of 99.67% (95% CI, 99.60-99.72%). RDT sensitivity depended on viral load, with decreasing sensitivity accompanied by descending viral load. VOC-dependent sensitivity assessment showed a sensitivity of 42.86% (95% CI, 32.82-53.52%) for the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, 43.42% (95% CI, 32.86-54.61%) for the Alpha VOC, 37.67% (95% CI, 30.22-45.75%) for the Delta VOC, and 33.67% (95% CI, 25.09-43.49%) for the Omicron VOC. Sensitivity in samples with high viral loads of ≥106 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per mL was significantly lower in the Omicron VOC (50.00%; 95% CI, 36.12-63.88%) than in the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (79.31%; 95% CI, 61.61-90.15%; p 0.015). DISCUSSION: RDT sensitivity for detection of the Omicron VOC is reduced in individuals infected with a high viral load, which curtails the effectiveness of RDTs. This aspect furthert: limits the use of RDTs, although RDTs are still an irreplaceable diagnostic tool for rapid, economic point-of-care and extensive SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Practice patterns and perceptions of influenza testing amongst pediatric urgent care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a sensitivity of 50% to 70% the rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT) continues to play an important role in clinical decision-making due to its quick turn-around time, high specificity, relative simplicity of use, and low cost. METHODS: A quantitative study using a web-based survey was distributed to 110 members of the Society of Pediatric Urgent Care aimed to assess RIDT use for diagnosis and management of influenza in outpatient pediatric patients. RESULTS: Responses from 61 providers were received. Forty-two percent (95% CI 29.5-54.5%) of respondents report higher confidence in their diagnosis of influenza with the aid of a positive RIDT. 28% of respondents (95% CI 16.6-39.4%) report a higher likelihood of prescribing antiviral medications to low-risk patients if an RIDT is positive than without laboratory confirmation. CONCLUSION: Most pediatric urgent care respondents reported higher confidence in their diagnosis and higher likelihood of prescribing antivirals with a positive RIDT rather than by clinical symptoms alone.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in children and utility of rapid antigen testing as an indicator of culturable virus.

We screened 65 longitudinally-collected nasal swab samples from 31 children aged 0-16 years who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.1. By day 7 after onset of symptoms 48% of children remained positive by rapid antigen test. In a sample subset we found 100% correlation between antigen test results and virus culture.

Sensibility and Specificity of the VitaPCR™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay for the Rapid Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Older Adults in the Emergency Department.

(1) Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid and reliable diagnostic tools are needed for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in urgent cases at admission to the hospital. We aimed to assess the performances of the rapid molecular VitaPCR™ test (Menarini Diagnostics) in a sample of older adults admitted to the Emergency Department of two Italian hospitals (2) Methods: The comparison between the rapid VitaPCR™ and the RT-PCR was performed in 1695 samples. Two naso-pharyngeal swab samplings from each individual were obtained and processed using the VitaPCR™ and the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (3) Results: VitaPCR™ exhibited good precision (<3% CV) and an almost perfect overall agreement (Cohen's K = 0.90) with the RT-PCR. The limit of detection of the VitaPCR™ was 4.1 copies/µL. Compared to the RT-PCR, the sensitivity, the specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values of VitaPCR™ were 83.4%, 99.9%, 99.2% and 98.3%, respectively (4) Conclusions: The VitaPCR™ showed similar sensitivity and specificity to other molecular-based rapid tests. This study suggests that the VitaPCR™ can allow the rapid management of patients within the Emergency Department. Nevertheless, it is advisable to obtain a negative result by a RT-PCR assay before admitting a patient to a regular ward.

Evaluation of the cobas Liat detection test for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses following the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS­CoV­2 & Influenza A/B assay (LiatCOVID/flu) for the detection of both severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron outbreak. METHODS: Residual nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPS) previously tested with cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B for SARS-CoV-2 and with the Allplex Respiratory Panel 1 for influenza viruses were collected. All samples were submitted to the LiatCOVID/flu assay. RESULTS: A total of 1147 samples were collected comprising 167 SARS-CoV-2-positive, 556 SARS-CoV-2-negative, 224 influenza-positive, and 200 influenza-negative cases. The positive percent agreement (PPA)/negative percent agreement (NPA) of LiatCOVID/flu for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses compared to the previously tested methods were 100% of 100% and 99.6% of 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LiatCOVID/flu assay shows an acceptable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using NPS samples.

Venture of a Tertiary Care Neurosurgical Center in Course of COVID-19 Lockdown without RT-PCR.

"I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient." Obliged by the aforementioned oath, no medical practitioner shall sit in a moral judgment on any patient but will treat their illness to the best of their ability whatever the circumstances. A clear concord was yet to be authorized after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the global pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2infection. As a diagnostic modality, WHO recommended real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a reliable test; however, its availability in a deprived nation like ours became a major restraining factor. Despite an asset of having high specificity, RT-PCR for coronavirus disease 2019has its own liability of having low sensitivity. Henceforth, as time passed by, the validity of the rapid diagnostic tests was put into question. In later months, a few centers around our periphery started conducting RT-PCR, but the time taken to obtain the result was long-drawn-out process and the patient who needed urgent neurosurgical intervention at Annapurna Neurological Institute and Allied Sciences had to wait. We would like to share our expedition through peaks and valleys of managing 215 patients during the vicious circle of lockdown and global pandemic.

Real-World Accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Republic of Korea.

Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) became the most important tool for the diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), however there have been very few evaluations of the accuracy of the RDTs in actual use. In this study, we investigated the performance accuracy of the RDT, the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (STANDARD Q), in the Republic of Korea. We collected a total of 5,792 results that underwent both RDT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction simultaneously, and overall sensitivity and specificity of the STANDARD Q were 57.6% and 99.9%, respectively. With binomial logistic regression analysis, we estimated that about half of the COVID-19 patients with a cycle threshold value of 25 for E and RdRP were RDT-negative. These results suggest that the clinical sensitivity of RDTs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is considerably low in a real-world setting, and we recommend that limitations of RDTs should be considered when setting up COVID-19 test strategies.

Evaluation of qualitative and semi-quantitative cut offs for rapid diagnostic lateral flow test in relation to serology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: findings of a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information to compare the qualitative and semi-quantitative performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and serology for the assessment of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Therefore, the objective of the study was (a) to compare the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection between RDT and laboratory serology, trying to identify appropriate semi-quantitative cut-offs for RDT in relation with quantitative serology values and to (b) evaluate diagnostic accuracy of RDT compared to the NAAT gold standard in an unselected adult population. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were simultaneously measured with lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA), the Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (by capillary blood), the iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) (by venous blood) and the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) in samples from in- and out-patients with confirmed, suspected and negative diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) attending Udine Hospital (Italy) (March-May 2020). Interpretation of RDT was qualitative (positive/negative) and semi-quantitative based on a chromatographic intensity scale (negative, weak positive, positive). RESULTS: Overall, 720 paired antibody measures were performed on 858 patients. The qualitative and semiquantitative agreement analysis performed in the whole sample between LFA and CLIA provided a Kendall's tau of 0.578 (p < 0.001) and of 0.623 (p < 0.001), respectively, for IgM and IgG. In patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, accordance between LFA and CLIA was maintained as a function of time from the onset of COVID-19 disease and the severity of disease both for qualitative and semi-quantitative assessments. RDT compared to the NAAT gold standard in 858 patients showed 78.5% sensitivity (95% CI 75.1%-81.7%) and 94.1% specificity (95% CI 90.4%-96.8%), with variable accordance depending on the timing from symptom onset. CONCLUSION: The RDT used in our study can be a non-invasive and reliable alternative to serological tests and facilitate both qualitative and a semi-quantitative antibody detection in COVID-19.

Performance evaluation of antigen detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for COVID-19 diagnosis in a primary healthcare center during the Shanghai COVID-19 quarantine period.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the cornerstone of prompt patient care. However, the reliability of the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains inconclusive. METHODS: We conducted a field evaluation of Ag-RDT performance during the Shanghai Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine and screened 7225 individuals visiting our Emergency Department. 83 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (+) individuals were enrolled in the current study. Simultaneously, Ag-RDT was performed to evaluate its testing performance. RESULTS: For the Ag-RDT(-) cases, the average cycle threshold (Ct) values of the N gene were 27.26 ± 4.59, which were significantly higher than the Ct value (21.9 ± 4.73) of the Ag-RDT(+) individuals (p < 0.0001). The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT versus that of RT-PCR was 43.37%. The Ag-RDT(+) individuals regarding the N gene's Ct value were 16 cases in the < 20 range, 12 in 20-25, 5 in 25-30, and 3 in 30-35. The corresponding sensitivity was 84.21%, 52.17%, 21.74% and 16.67%, respectively. Meanwhile, sampling had a straight specificity of 100% regardless of the Ct value. CONCLUSIONS: The Ag-RDT were extremely sensitive in asymptomatic COVID-19 individuals with a Ct value < 20.

Transforming Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Precision Public Health: Open Guidelines for Manufacturers and Users

Background: Precision public health (PPH) can maximize impact by targeting surveillance and interventions by temporal, spatial, and epidemiological characteristics. Although rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have enabled ubiquitous point-of-care testing in low-resource settings, their impact has been less than anticipated, owing in part to lack of features to streamline data capture and analysis. Objective: We aimed to transform the RDT into a tool for PPH by defining information and data axioms and an information utilization index (IUI);identifying design features to maximize the IUI;and producing open guidelines (OGs) for modular RDT features that enable links with digital health tools to create an RDT-OG system. Methods: We reviewed published papers and conducted a survey with experts or users of RDTs in the sectors of technology, manufacturing, and deployment to define features and axioms for information utilization. We developed an IUI, ranging from 0% to 100%, and calculated this index for 33 World Health Organization–prequalified RDTs. RDT-OG specifications were developed to maximize the IUI;the feasibility and specifications were assessed through developing malaria and COVID-19 RDTs based on OGs for use in Kenya and Indonesia. Results: The survey respondents (n=33) included 16 researchers, 7 technologists, 3 manufacturers, 2 doctors or nurses, and 5 other users. They were most concerned about the proper use of RDTs (30/33, 91%), their interpretation (28/33, 85%), and reliability (26/33, 79%), and were confident that smartphone-based RDT readers could address some reliability concerns (28/33, 85%), and that readers were more important for complex or multiplex RDTs (33/33, 100%). The IUI of prequalified RDTs ranged from 13% to 75% (median 33%). In contrast, the IUI for an RDT-OG prototype was 91%. The RDT open guideline system that was developed was shown to be feasible by (1) creating a reference RDT-OG prototype;(2) implementing its features and capabilities on a smartphone RDT reader, cloud information system, and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources;and (3) analyzing the potential public health impact of RDT-OG integration with laboratory, surveillance, and vital statistics systems. Conclusions: Policy makers and manufacturers can define, adopt, and synergize with RDT-OGs and digital health initiatives. The RDT-OG approach could enable real-time diagnostic and epidemiological monitoring with adaptive interventions to facilitate control or elimination of current and emerging diseases through PPH.