Optimizing Radiologic Detection of COVID-19: Test Set Technologies and Artificial Intelligence

COVID-19 has had a huge impact globally. This chapter examines the role that test set technologies coupled with artificial intelligence can transform clinical educational strategies. Using AI to streamline a methodology that has been around for decades enables education that is tailored to each clinician, acknowledges each individual's weaknesses, and is available instantly wherever in the world the clinician is available. Cautionary notes are also provided. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022.

Effective prognostic and clinical risk stratification in COVID-19 using multimodality biomarkers.

In acute coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients, effective clinical risk stratification has important implications on treatment and therapeutic resource distribution. This article reviews the evidence behind a wide range of biomarkers with prognostic value in COVID-19. Patient characteristics and co-morbidities, such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, are associated with increased mortality risk. Peripheral oxygen saturation and arterial oxygenation are predictive of severe respiratory compromise, whereas risk scores such as the 4C-score enable multi-factorial prognostic risk estimation. Blood tests such as markers of inflammation, cardiac injury and d-dimer and abnormalities on electrocardiogram are linked to inpatient prognosis. Of the imaging modalities, lung ultrasound and echocardiography enable the bedside assessment of prognostic abnormalities in COVID-19. Chest radiograph (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) can inform about prognostic pulmonary pathologies, whereas cardiovascular CT detects high-risk features such as coronary artery and aortic calcification. Dynamic changes in biomarkers, such as blood tests, CXR, CT and electrocardiogram findings, can further inform about disease severity and prognosis. Despite the vast volumes of existing evidence, several gaps exist in our understanding of COVID-19 biomarkers. First, the pathophysiological basis on which these markers can foretell prognosis in COVID-19 remains poorly understood. Second, certain under-explored tests such as thoracic impedance assessment and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging deserve further investigation. Lastly, the prognostic values of most biomarkers in COVID-19 are derived from retrospective analyses. Prospective studies are required to validate these markers for guiding clinical decision-making and to facilitate their translation into clinical management pathways.

Monocyte Distribution Width as a Diagnostic Marker for Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Monocyte distribution width (MDW) is an emerging biomarker for infection. It is available easily and quickly as part of the CBC count, which is performed routinely on hospital admission. The increasing availability and promising results of MDW as a biomarker in sepsis has prompted an expansion of its use to other infectious diseases. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the diagnostic performance of MDW across multiple infectious disease outcomes and care settings? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the diagnostic performance of MDW across multiple infectious disease outcomes was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science through February 4, 2022. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with three or more reports identified (sepsis and COVID-19). Diagnostic performance measures were calculated for individual studies with pooled estimates created by linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 29 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Most examined sepsis (19 studies) and COVID-19 (six studies). Pooled estimates of diagnostic performance for sepsis differed by reference standard (Second vs Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock criteria) and tube anticoagulant used and ranged from an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.74 to 0.94, with mean sensitivity of 0.69 to 0.79 and mean specificity of 0.57 to 0.86. For COVID-19, the pooled AUC of MDW was 0.76, mean sensitivity was 0.79, and mean specificity was 0.59. INTERPRETATION: MDW exhibited good diagnostic performance for sepsis and COVID-19. Diagnostic thresholds for sepsis should be chosen with consideration of reference standard and tube type used. TRIAL REGISTRY: Prospero; No.: CRD42020210074; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Evaluation of the Rapid Antigen Detection Test for Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience from a Centralized Isolation Site in Shanghai, China.

Rapid and reliable diagnosis is important for the management of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The rapid antigen detection test (RADT) is a rapid, inexpensive, and easy method. Several studies have reported that RADTs performed well in many countries; however, very few studies have been reported in China. In this study, we assessed the performance of the RADT (Ediagnosis COVID-19 antigen test kit). This study was conducted in a centralized isolation site in Shanghai and enrolled 716 patients with COVID-19 and 203 noninfected participants. Nasopharyngeal swabs from all participants were collected on the same day and tested using the RADT and real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). The performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as threshold cycle (CT) values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that the sensitivity for patients with CT values lower than 20 was 96.55% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.05 to 99.4). The sensitivities were 78.4% (95% CI, 69.96 to 85.05) for participants within 5 days after the first RT-PCR-positive result and 90.77% (95% CI, 80.34 to 96.19) within 5 days after symptom onset. Moreover, the sensitivity of the RADT was more than 80% for patients with symptoms on the day of testing, including fever (89.29%), cough (86.84%), stuffy nose (92.59%), runny nose (92%), sore throat (81.25%), and muscle pain (80.77%), especially for those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. The specificity of the RADT was good in all scenarios. During the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, Ediagnosis performed excellently in individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower CT values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms. IMPORTANCE RADTs have demonstrated excellent performance in many counties for screening SARS-CoV-2 infection, but very few studies have been conducted in China. The performance of RADTs is largely related to different real-life scenarios. In our study, the performance of the RADT was evaluated in different scenarios, such as CT values, symptomatic phase, and symptoms on the day of testing. The results demonstrated that Ediagnosis (an RADT made in China) performed excellently for individuals with a higher viral load (evidenced by lower CT values), individuals in the early symptomatic phase, and especially those with upper respiratory tract symptoms.

Is diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection dogs reduced -due to virus variation- over the time?

Medical detection dogs have a high potential for use as alternative diagnostic tools not only for organic diseases, but also for infectious diseases. However, new variants emerging over time may affect the accuracy and sensitivity of diagnostic methods including medical detection dogs in case of viral pandemics. To the best of our knowledge, this is a pioneer study aimed to investigate diagnostic performances and generalization ability of SARS-CoV-2 detection dogs against the new variant after being trained with the original virus. Two SARS-CoV-2 detection dogs were used in this study. In total, 1002 samples including the Omicron variant were introduced to the dogs using a double-blinded design. Two different refresher training sessions were conducted to train the dogs to identify the scent of the Omicron variant. In the first refreshment training, mixed samples (original virus and Omicron variant) were used. The diagnostic performances of the dogs were significantly increased only after the second refreshment training where only the Omicron variant was introduced. This study illustrates that diagnostic performances of SARS-CoV-2 detection dogs were not consistent over time with the emerging new variants. Thus, refreshment training with new variant(s) should be conducted with every new variant which may affect the diagnostic performances of those dogs in such infectious outbreaks.

Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Highly Sensitive Rapid Antigen Test Using Silver Amplification Technology for Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 remains a serious health concern worldwide due to outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 variants that can escape vaccine-acquired immunity and infect and transmit more efficiently. Therefore, an appropriate testing method for COVID-19 is essential for effective infection control and the prevention of local outbreaks. Compared to reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, antigen tests are used for simple point-of-care testing, enabling the identification of viral infections. In this study, we tested the clinical usefulness of the FUJIFILM COVID-19 Ag test, an antigen test based on silver amplification and immunochromatographic technology. The FUJIFILM COVID-19 Ag test was shown to detect a lower viral concentration as compared to other conventional kits without significant performance loss in detecting prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants. We tested nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs from a single patient during two different epidemic periods dominated by various SARS-CoV-2 variants. We observed that the sensitivity of the FUJIFILM COVID-19 Ag test was 95.7% and 85.7% in nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs, respectively. These results suggest that the FUJIFILM COVID-19 Ag test is highly sensitive and applicable when RT-PCR testing is unavailable. Furthermore, these results indicate that high-frequency testing using nasal swab specimens may be a valuable screening strategy.

The N-terminal Subunit of the Porcine Deltacoronavirus Spike Recombinant Protein (S1) Does Not Serologically Cross-react with Other Porcine Coronaviruses.

Porcine deltacoronavirus (PDCoV), belonging to family Coronaviridae and genus Deltacoronavirus, is a major enteric pathogen in swine. Accurate PDCoV diagnosis relying on laboratory testing and antibody detection is an important approach. This study evaluated the potential of the receptor-binding subunit of the PDCoV spike protein (S1), generated using a mammalian expression system, for specific antibody detection via indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Serum samples were collected at day post-inoculation (DPI) -7 to 42, from pigs (n = 83) experimentally inoculated with different porcine coronaviruses (PorCoV). The diagnostic sensitivity of the PDCoV S1-based ELISA was evaluated using serum samples (n = 72) from PDCoV-inoculated animals. The diagnostic specificity and potential cross-reactivity of the assay was evaluated on PorCoV-negative samples (n = 345) and samples collected from pigs experimentally inoculated with other PorCoVs (n = 472). The overall diagnostic performance, time of detection, and detection rate over time varied across different S/P cut-offs, estimated by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The higher detection rate in the PDCoV group was observed after DPI 21. An S/P cut-off of 0.25 provided 100% specificity with no serological cross-reactivity against other PorCoV. These results support the use of S1 protein-based ELISA for accurate detection of PDCoV infections, transference of maternal antibodies, or active surveillance.

Considerations for the selection of tests for SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics.

During the course of 2020, the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread rapidly across the world. Clinical diagnostic testing for SARS-Cov-2 infection has relied on the real-time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction and is considered the gold standard assay. Commercial vendors and laboratories quickly mobilised to develop diagnostic tests to detect the novel coronavirus, which was fundamentally important in the pandemic response. These SARS-Cov-2 assays were developed in line with the Food Drug Administration-Emergency Use Authorization guidance. Although new tests are continuously being developed, information about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic molecular test accuracy has been limited and at times controversial. Therefore, the analytical and clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 test kits should be carefully considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities and evaluated by independent laboratory validation. This would provide improved end-user confidence in selecting the most reliable and accurate diagnostic test. Moreover, it is unclear whether some of these rapidly developed tests have been subjected to rigorous quality control and assurance required under good manufacturing practice. Variable target gene regions selected for currently available tests, potential mutation in target gene regions, non-standardized pre-analytic phase, a lack of manufacturer independent validation data all create difficulties in selecting tests appropriate for different countries and laboratories. Here we provide information on test criteria which are important in the assessment and selection of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic tests and outline the potential issues associated with a proportion of the tests on the market.

Evaluation of the performance of Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in suspected patients in Ethiopia.

Objective: Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction is a gold standard diagnostic tool for coronavirus disease-2019. Limited coverage and long turnaround times are linked to the poor response to the pandemic in developing countries like Ethiopia. To overcome the challenges, rapid antigen diagnostic kits are recommended if their diagnostic performance is at an acceptable level. We explored the performance of the Panbio™ coronavirus disease-2019 antigen rapid diagnostic test in diagnosing the coronavirus disease-2019 infection. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on coronavirus disease-2019 suspected patients in Wollega University Referral Hospital, from 1 April to 30 May 2021. After obtaining consent/ assent, sociodemographic and pair of nasopharyngeal samples were collected from each and examined by Panbio antigen rapid diagnostic test and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Data were entered and analysed using SPSS version 24. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and kappa values were calculated. Results: A total of 148 coronavirus disease-2019 suspected individuals (54.1% male) participated in the study. Of all, 73 (49.3%) were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test. The sensitivity and specificity of Panbio were found 81% (95% confidence interval: 71%-91%) and 98.7% (95% confidence interval: 96%-100%), respectively. From 75 negative and 73 positive samples by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, 1 (1.33%) and 14 (19.18%) were found false positive and negative by antigen rapid diagnostic test, respectively. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Panbio were 98.3% and 84.1%, respectively, and test agreement was substantial (kappa value = 0.80). Conclusion: Panbio has fine performance in suspected patients. Further studies are needed to examine the accuracy of self-collecting and patient self-testing with healthcare workers, using antigen rapid diagnostic test against the reference standard.

Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.

A prospective clinical evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test using anterior nasal samples.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic accuracy of antigen testing of anterior nasal (AN) samples for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has not been evaluated in the Japanese population. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (rapid antigen test) using AN samples. METHODS: Two AN samples and one nasopharyngeal (NP) sample were collected from individuals undergoing screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results of the rapid antigen test and the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test using AN samples were compared to those of RT-PCR tests using NP samples. RESULTS: Samples were collected from 800 participants, 95 and 110 of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR tests of AN and NP samples, respectively. The overall sensitivity/specificity of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 72.7%/100% and 86.4%/100%, respectively. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 84.7% and 94.9%, respectively. In asymptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 58.8% and 76.5%, respectively. The sensitivity of the AN rapid antigen test was over 80% in cases with cycle threshold (Ct) values < 25; it significantly decreased with an increase in the Ct values (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The rapid antigen test with AN samples had a favorable sensitivity, especially in symptomatic cases or in cases with Ct values < 25. It gave no false-positive results. Compared with AN-RT PCR, the AN rapid antigen test had a modestly lower sensitivity in asymptomatic cases.

Diagnostic Performance of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2: The COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) study.

Background: Rapid diagnostic testing for SARS-Cov-2 antigens is used to combat the ongoing pandemic. In this study we aimed to compare two RDTs, the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche) and the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott), against rRT-PCR. Methods: We included 2,215 all-comers at a diagnostic center between February 1 and March 31, 2021. rRT-PCR-positive samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants. Findings: Three hundred and thirty eight participants (15%) were rRT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivities of Roche-RDT and Abbott-RDT were 60.4 and 56.8% (P < 0.0001) and specificities 99.7% and 99.8% (P = 0.076). Sensitivity inversely correlated with rRT-PCR-Ct values. The RDTs had higher sensitivities in individuals referred by treating physicians (79.5%, 78.7%) than in those referred by health departments (49.5%, 44.3%) or tested for other reasons (50%, 45.8%), in persons without any comorbidities (74.4%, 71%) compared to those with comorbidities (38.2%, 34.4%), in individuals with COVID-19 symptoms (75.2%, 74.3%) compared to those without (31.9%, 23.3%), and in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 variants (87.7%, 84%) compared to Alpha variant carriers (77.1%, 72.3%). If 10,000 symptomatic individuals are tested of which 500 are truly positive, the RDTs would generate 38 false-positive and 124 false-negative results. If 10,000 asymptomatic individuals are tested, including 50 true positives, 18 false-positives and 34 false-negatives would be generated. Interpretation: The sensitivities of the two RDTs for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers are unsatisfactory. Their widespread use may not be effective in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The virus genotype influences the sensitivity of the two RDTs. RDTs should be evaluated for different SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Diagnostic performance of chest computed tomography for COVID-19 in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and computed tomography features in 987 patients.

Purpose: The outbreak of a new coronavirus is still spreading worldwide, affecting children and adults. However, COVID-19 in children shows distinctive characteristics in clinical and radiological presentation. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of chest CT and clarify the clinicoradiological CT features of COVID-19 among children with COVID-19. Material and methods: Adhering to PRISMA-DTA guidelines, we searched databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science) to identify relevant articles. The search keywords were: "Chest CT" AND "COVID-19" OR "coronavirus" OR "SARS-COV-2" AND "Children" OR "Pediatric". Published reports providing clinical and imaging findings of paediatric COVID-19 were included. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included, with 987 patients. Most of the patients were symptomatic (76.9%; 95% CI: 69.2-84.7%), with fever being the most frequent manifestation (64%; 95% CI: 58.0-71.2%). Only 2.3% of the cases were critical, and mortality was reported in one case. The proportion of COVID-19 detected by chest CT among children is relatively high (658/987), with ground-glass opacity (GGO) being the most prevalent feature (52.5%; 95% CI: 40.5-64.7%). The pooled sensitivity of chest CT in all patients was 67%; however, it was different between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (71% and 33%, respectively). The pooled specificity was (67%), which was calculated after considering the symptomatic PCR-positive patients as the gold standard. Conclusions: Chest CT showed moderate pooled sensitivity and specificity among symptomatic children with COVID-19 and low sensitivity among asymptomatic children. This means that CT is not to be used as a screening tool or for confirmation of the diagnosis in children and should be reserved for specific clinical situations.

Flu@home: the Comparative Accuracy of an At-Home Influenza Rapid Diagnostic Test Using a Prepositioned Test Kit, Mobile App, Mail-in Reference Sample, and Symptom-Based Testing Trigger.

At-home testing with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for respiratory viruses could facilitate early diagnosis, guide patient care, and prevent transmission. Such RDTs are best used near the onset of illness when viral load is highest and clinical action will be most impactful, which may be achieved by at-home testing. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the QuickVue Influenza A+B RDT in an at-home setting. A convenience sample of 5,229 individuals who were engaged with an on-line health research platform were prospectively recruited throughout the United States. "Flu@home" test kits containing a QuickVue RDT and reference sample collection and shipping materials were prepositioned with participants at the beginning of the study. Participants responded to daily symptom surveys. If they reported experiencing cough along with aches, fever, chills, and/or sweats, they used their flu@home kit following instructions on a mobile app and indicated what lines they saw on the RDT. Of the 976 participants who met criteria to use their self-collection kit and completed study procedures, 202 (20.7%) were positive for influenza by qPCR. The RDT had a sensitivity of 28% (95% CI = 21 to 36) and specificity of 99% (98 to 99) for influenza A, and 32% (95% CI = 20 to 46) and 99% (95% CI = 98 to 99), for influenza B. Our results support the concept of app-supported, prepositioned at-home RDT kits using symptom-based triggers, although it cannot be recommended with the RDT used in this study. Further research is needed to determine ways to improve the accuracy and utility of home-based testing for influenza.

Performance of WHO-Endorsed Rapid Tests for Detection of Susceptibility to First-Line Drugs in Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Bangladesh.

The fast and accurate detection of susceptibility in drugs is a major challenge for a successful tuberculosis (TB) control programme. This study evaluated the performance of WHO-endorsed rapid diagnostic tools, such as BACTEC MGIT 960 SIRE (MGIT SIRE), GenoType MTBDRplus (MTBDRplus) and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), for detecting susceptibility to first-line anti-TB drugs among pulmonary TB patients in Bangladesh. A total of 825 sputum samples with results from drug susceptibility testing (DST) against first-line anti-TB drugs in the MGIT SIRE, MTBDRplus and Xpert assays were evaluated and compared with the gold standard proportion susceptibility method of the Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium. The overall sensitivities of MGIT SIRE were 97.6%, 90.0%, 61.3% and 44.9%, while specificities were 89.9%, 94.5%, 91.3% and 92.2% for detection of susceptibility to isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF), streptomycin (STR) and ethambutol (EMB), respectively. For MTBDRplus, the sensitivities were 88.0% and 88.7%, and the specificities were 97.4% and 97.8% for the detection of susceptibility to INH and RIF, respectively. Xpert demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 94.8% and 99.5%, respectively, for the detection of RIF susceptibility. All tests performed significantly better in retreated TB patients compared with primary TB cases. For detection of RIF and INH susceptibility, all three assays showed almost perfect agreement with the LJ method, although MGIT SIRE exhibited low agreement for STR and EMB. Considering the high performance, shorter turnaround time and ease of use, molecular-based approaches Xpert and MTBDRplus can be widely implemented throughout the country for the rapid detection of drug-resistant TB.

Diagnostic accuracy of CO-RADS in patients with suspected Coronavirus Disease-2019: A single center experience.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) is a tool for standardizing the reports of patients with suspected or confirmed Sars-CoV-2 infection. We performed a study of the performance of the CO-RADS in a triage scenario of patients in Brazil. METHODS: Data from 426 Computed Tomography (CT) scans from March 2020 through December 2020 were assessed in an ambidirectional, both retrospective and prospective, for the assessment in one of the six categories of the CO-RADS. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) Youden's index, Positive and Negative Clinical Utility Index (UC + and UC- respectively) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). We also plotted Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve with Area Under the Curve (AUC) for CO-RADS of >4 (4 + 5). RESULTS: For CO-RADS classification > 4 (4 + 5) considered positive, the AUC obtained was of 0.89 (95% CI of 0.02), sensitivity of 78% (95% CI of 0.3), specificity of 91% (95% CI of 0.3), PPV of 0.92 (95% CI of 0.02), NPV of 0.41 (95% CI of 0.03), PLR of 0.85 (95% CI of 0.2), and NLR of 0.23 (95% CI of 0.02). CONCLUSION: CO-RADS demonstrated overall good diagnostic performance in stratifying patients with suspected Sars-CoV-2 infection, even those without confirmed laboratorial diagnosis, therefore being useful in a triage scenario with lack of resources.

Performance of anterior nares and tongue swabs for nucleic acid, Nucleocapsid, and Spike antigen testing for detecting SARS-CoV-2 against nasopharyngeal PCR and viral culture.

OBJECTIVES: This study assesses and compares the performance of different swab types and specimen collection sites for SARS-CoV-2 testing, to reference standard real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture. METHODS: Symptomatic adults with COVID-19 who visited routine COVID-19 testing sites used spun polyester and FLOQSwabs to self-collect specimens from the anterior nares and tongue. We evaluated the self-collected specimen from anterior nares and tongue swabs for the nucleocapsid (N) or spike (S) antigen of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and then compared these results with results from RT-PCR and viral cultures from nurse-collected nasopharyngeal swabs. RESULTS: Diagnostic sensitivity was highest for RT-PCR testing conducted using specimens from the anterior nares collected on FLOQSwabs (84%; 95% CI 68-94%) and spun polyester swabs (82%; 95% CI 66-92%), compared to RT-PCR tests conducted using specimens from nasopharyngeal swabs. Relative to viral culture from nasopharyngeal swabs, diagnostic sensitivities were higher for RT-PCR and antigen testing of anterior nares swabs (91-100%) than that of tongue swabs (18-81%). Antigen testing of anterior nares swabs had higher sensitivities against viral culture (91%) than against nasopharyngeal RT-PCR (38-70%). All investigational tests had high specificity compared with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Spun polyester swabs are equally effective as FLOQSwabs for anterior nasal RT-PCR testing. CONCLUSIONS: We found that anterior nares specimens were more sensitive than tongue swab specimens or antigen testing for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Thus, self-collected anterior nares specimens may represent an alternative method for diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing in some settings.

Evaluation of Sensitivity and Specificity of Three Commercial Real-Time Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in Bangladesh.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has manifested into an unprecedented public health crisis. The rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has facilitated reagent developers to customize and receive authorization for nucleic acid testing kits in a short period, which would have resulted in some shortcomings in the quality parameters of the kits. Consequently, in-house clinical validations of innovative real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits are required. This research aims to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of various RT-qPCR kits available in Bangladesh. Methodology A total of 150 samples were obtained from patients with suspected COVID-19 infection when the delta variant was predominant, followed by RNA extraction performed using a nucleic acid isolation kit. Subsequently, three commercially available PCR kits named Sansure (China), STAT-NATⒷ (Sentinel Diagnostics, Italy), and Roche Biochem (Switzerland) were applied to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results The results showed that the STAT-NATⒷ kit is more sensitive than the other two, as indicated by the cycle threshold (Ct) values of respective genes. STAT-NATⒷ RT-qPCR can detect the ORF1ab gene sensitively (p < 0.001) compared to Sansure. STAT-NATⒷ was also capable of detecting E and RdRp genes more sensitively (p < 0.001) compared to Roche. Regarding specificity, STAT-NATⒷ (95% confidence interval [Cl] = 92.29-99.73%). RT-qPCR showed more accuracy than Sansure (95% Cl = 90.77-99.32%) and Roche (95% Cl = 81.17-94.38%). The area under the curve for E, ORF1ab, and RdRp genes of the STAT NATⒷ PCR kit was 0.952, 0.959, and 0.981, respectively. Conclusions This study concluded that STAT-NATⒷ is a better diagnostic RT-qPCR kit compared to Sansure and Roche for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

The PRONTO study: Clinical performance of ID NOW in individuals with compatible SARS-CoV-2 symptoms in walk-in centres-accelerated turnaround time for contact tracing.

BACKGROUND: This PRONTO study investigated the clinical performance of the Abbott ID NOWTM (IDN) COVID-19 diagnostic assay used at point of care and its impact on turnaround time for divulgation of test results. METHODS: Prospective study conducted from December 2020 to February 2021 in acute symptomatic participants presenting in three walk-in centres in the province of Québec. RESULTS: Valid paired samples were obtained from 2,372 participants. A positive result on either the IDN or the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification test (SOC-NAAT) was obtained in 423 participants (prevalence of 17.8%). Overall sensitivity of IDN and SOC-NAAT were 96.4% (95% CI: 94.2-98.0%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.6-99.8), respectively; negative predictive values were 99.2% (95% CI: 98.7-99.6%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 99.5-100%), respectively. Turnaround time for positive results was significantly faster on IDN. CONCLUSION: In our experience, IDN use in symptomatic individuals in walk-in centres is a reliable sensitive alternative to SOC-NAAT without the need for subsequent confirmation of negative results. Such deployment can accelerate contact tracing, reduce the burden on laboratories and increase access to testing.

Standardized reporting systems of chest computed tomography in a population with low coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence: A retrospective comparative study.

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of three reporting systems for computed tomography findings in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), namely the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS), COVID-19 Imaging Reporting and Data System (COVID-RADS), and Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) expert consensus statement, in a low COVID-19 prevalence area. METHOD: This institutional review board approval single-institutional retrospective study included 154 hospitalized patients between April 1 and May 21, 2020; 26 (16.9 %; 63.2 ± 14.1 years, 21 men) and 128 (65.7 ± 16.4 years, 87 men) patients were diagnosed with and without COVID-19 according to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction results, respectively. Written informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study. Six radiologists independently classified chest computed tomography images according to each reporting system. The area under receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and interobserver agreements were calculated and compared across the systems using paired t-test and kappa analysis. RESULTS: Mean area under receiver operating characteristic curves were as follows: CO-RADS, 0.89 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.90); COVID-RADS, 0.78 (0.75-0.80); and RSNA expert consensus statement, 0.88 (0.86-0.90). Average kappa values across observers were 0.52 (95 % CI: 0.45-0.60), 0.51 (0.41-0.61), and 0.57 (0.49-0.64) for CO-RADS, COVID-RADS, and RSNA expert consensus statement, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were the highest at 0.71, 0.53, 0.72, 0.96, and 0.56 in the CO-RADS; 0.56, 0.31, 0.54, 0.95, and 0.35 in the COVID-RADS; 0.83, 0.49, 0.61, 0.96, and 0.55 in the RSNA expert consensus statement, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CO-RADS exhibited the highest specificity, positive predictive value, which are especially important in a low-prevalence population, while maintaining high accuracy and negative predictive value, demonstrating the best performance in a low-prevalence population.