Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.039
Filter
1.
Arq. ciências saúde UNIPAR ; 27(3): 1322-1333, 2023.
Article in Portuguese | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-20242962

ABSTRACT

Introdução: Com a emergência do SARS-CoV-2 foi disponibilizado uma grande quantidade de ferramentas de diagnóstico. Neste contexto, a falta de vacina, de tratamento e o grande número de casos graves e morte, possibilitou a aprovação emergencial de diversos testes, que ainda necessitam de estudos populacionais para seu registro definitivo. Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão de literatura para avaliar as metodologias de diagnóstico disponíveis no Brasil, de acordo com a realidade local de saúde, explorando o momento epidemiológico a complexidade do teste e a finalidade da sua aplicação. Metodologia: Trata-se de um estudo bibliográfico, descritivo do tipo revisão de literatura. Foram utilizadas as seguintes bases de dados científicos para buscas: PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS E COCHRANE LIBRARY, através de descritores selecionados na plataforma DECS. Resultados: O cenário de diversos ensaios, baseados em diferentes metodologias, como os testes baseados em RNA viral, em detecção de antígenos virais ou de anticorpos, associados ao conhecimento da história natural do vírus, possibilita uma análise crítica do melhor diagnóstico de acordo com a clínica do paciente, os epidemiológicos, o objetivo do diagnóstico e a acurácia do ensaio. Atualmente, há mudança no padrão imunológico da população e a descrição de tipos e subtipos de SARS-CoV-2 com mudanças gênicas, que podem levar a mudanças na acurácia diagnóstica ou a re-emergência em surtos de doença grave. Conclusão: Ainda é incerto o caminho evolutivo da história natural da Covid-19 e os ensaios diagnósticos estão em diferentes estágios de desenvolvimento, validação e produção e cada tipo de teste tem suas próprias vantagens e desvantagens distintas inerentes a plataforma tecnológica de origem e uma combinação de tipos de testes usados em momentos diferentes pode ser útil para a condução clínica dos pacientes e no controle da pandemia por SARS-CoV-2.


Introduction: With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, a large number of diagnostic tools were made available. In this context, the lack of vaccine, treatment and the large number of severe cases and death, allowed the emergency approval of several tests, which still require population studies for their definitive registration. Objective: To carry out a literature review to evaluate the diagnostic methodologies available in Brazil, according to the local health reality, exploring the epidemiological moment, the complexity of the test and the purpose of its application. Methodology: This is a bibliographic, descriptive study of the literature review type. The following scientific databases were used for searches: PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS AND COCHRANE LIBRARY, through selected descriptors on the DECS platform. Results: The scenario of several tests, based on different methodologies, such as tests based on viral RNA, on detection of viral antigens or antibodies, associated with knowledge of the natural history of the virus, allows a critical analysis of the best diagnosis according to the patient's clinical, epidemiological, diagnostic objective and assay accuracy. Currently, there is a change in the immune pattern of the population and the description of types and subtypes of SARS-CoV-2 with genetic changes, which can lead to changes in diagnostic accuracy or the re-emergence in outbreaks of severe disease. Conclusion: The evolutionary path of the natural history of Covid-19 is still uncertain and diagnostic assays are at different stages of development, validation and production and each type of test has its own distinct advantages and disadvantages inherent in the technology platform of origin and a combination of types of tests used at different times can be useful for the clinical management of patients and in the control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.


Introducción: Con la aparición del SARS-CoV-2, se dispuso de un gran número de herramientas diagnósticas. En este contexto, la falta de vacuna, tratamiento y el gran número de casos graves y muerte, permitieron la aprobación de urgencia de varias pruebas, que aún requieren estudios poblacionales para su registro definitivo. Objetivo: Realizar una revisión bibliográfica para evaluar las metodologías diagnósticas disponibles en Brasil, de acuerdo con la realidad sanitaria local, explorando el momento epidemiológico, la complejidad de la prueba y la finalidad de su aplicación. Metodología: Se trata de un estudio bibliográfico, descriptivo, del tipo revisión de literatura. Para las búsquedas se utilizaron las siguientes bases de datos científicas PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS Y COCHRANE LIBRARY, a través de descriptores seleccionados en la plataforma DECS. Resultados: El escenario de varias pruebas, basadas en diferentes metodologías, como pruebas basadas en el ARN viral, en la detección de antígenos virales o anticuerpos, asociado al conocimiento de la historia natural del virus, permite un análisis crítico del mejor diagnóstico de acuerdo con la clínica del paciente, epidemiológica, objetivo diagnóstico y precisión de la prueba. Actualmente, hay un cambio en el patrón inmunológico de la población y la descripción de tipos y subtipos de SARS-CoV-2 con cambios genéticos, que pueden conducir a cambios en la precisión diagnóstica o la reaparición en brotes de enfermedad grave. Conclusiones: El camino evolutivo de la historia natural del Covid-19 es aún incierto y los ensayos de diagnóstico se encuentran en diferentes etapas de desarrollo, validación y producción y cada tipo de prueba tiene sus propias ventajas y desventajas distintas inherentes a la plataforma tecnológica de origen y una combinación de tipos de pruebas utilizadas en diferentes momentos puede ser útil para el manejo clínico de los pacientes y en el control de la pandemia de SARS- CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Systematic Reviews as Topic , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , Health Services Research , Antibodies/analysis , Antigens/analysis
2.
BMJ Open ; 13(4): e066776, 2023 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2302844

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Reverse transcriptase PCR is the most sensitive test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. However, the scale-up of these tests in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been limited due to infrastructure and cost. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests are an alternative option for diagnosing active infection that may allow for faster, easier, less expensive and more widespread testing. We compared the implementation of antigen and PCR testing programmes in Rwanda. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed routinely collected PCR and antigen testing data for all reported tests conducted nationally. We administered semiquantitative surveys to healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in COVID-19 testing and care and clients receiving antigen testing. SETTING: Rwanda, November 2020-July 2021. PARTICIPANTS: National SARS-CoV-2 testing data; 49 HCWs involved in COVID-19 testing and care; 145 clients receiving antigen testing. INTERVENTIONS: None (retrospective analysis of programme data). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Test volumes, turnaround times, feasibility and acceptability of antigen testing. RESULTS: Data from 906 204 antigen tests and 445 235 PCR tests were included. Antigen testing increased test availability and case identification compared with PCR and had a median results return time of 0 days (IQR: 0-0). In contrast, PCR testing time ranged from 1 to 18 days depending on the sample collection site/district. Both HCWs and clients indicated that antigen testing was feasible and acceptable. Some HCWs identified stockouts and limited healthcare staff as challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Antigen testing facilitated rapid expansion and decentralisation of SARS-CoV-2 testing across lower tier facilities in Rwanda, contributed to increased case identification, reduced test processing times, and was determined to be feasible and acceptable to clients and providers. Antigen testing will be an essential component of SARS-CoV-2 test and treat programmes in LMICs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Rwanda
3.
Euro Surveill ; 28(16)2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2302104

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThere are conflicting reports on the performance of rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant; however, these tests continue to be used frequently to detect potentially contagious individuals with high viral loads.AimThe aim of this study was to investigate comparative detection of the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron variants by using a selection of 20 RDT and a limited panel of pooled combined oro- and nasopharyngeal clinical Delta and Omicron specimens.MethodsWe tested 20 CE-marked RDT for their performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron by using a panel of pooled clinical specimens collected in January 2022 in Berlin, Germany.ResultsWe observed equivalent detection performance for Delta and Omicron for most RDT, and sensitivity was widely in line with our previous pre-Delta/Omicron evaluation. Some variation for individual RDT was observed either for Delta vs Omicron detection, or when compared with the previous evaluation, which may be explained both by different panel sizes resulting in different data robustness and potential limitation of batch-to-batch consistency. Additional experiments with three RDT using non-pooled routine clinical samples confirmed comparable performance to detect Delta vs Omicron. Overall, RDT that were previously positively evaluated retained good performance also for Delta and Omicron variants.ConclusionOur findings suggest that currently available RDT are sufficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Berlin , COVID-19/diagnosis , Germany , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods
5.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(9): 2454-2458, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2269390

ABSTRACT

Not all persons recovering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection develop SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. We show that nonseroconversion is associated with younger age and higher reverse transcription PCR cycle threshold values and identify SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx as a major correlate of the systemic antibody response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibody Formation , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Humans , Nasopharynx , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroconversion
7.
Epidemiol Prev ; 44(5-6 Suppl 2): 193-199, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2238909

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: facing the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic requires intensive testing on the population to early identify and isolate infected subjects. Although RT-PCR is the most reliable technique to detect ongoing infections, serological tests are frequently proposed as tools in heterogeneous screening strategies. OBJECTIVES: to analyse the performance of a screening strategy proposed by the local government of Tuscany (Central Italy), which first uses qualitative rapid tests for antibody detection, and then RT-PCR tests on the positive subjects. METHODS: a simulation study is conducted to investigate the number of RT-PCR tests required by the screening strategy and the undetected ongoing infections in a pseudo-population of 500,000 subjects, under different prevalence scenarios and assuming a sensitivity of the serological test ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 (specificity 0.98). A compartmental model is used to predict the number of new infections generated by the false negatives two months after the screening, under different values of the infection reproduction number. RESULTS: assuming a sensitivity equal to 0.80 and a prevalence of 0.3%, the screening procedure would require on average 11,167 RT-PCR tests and would produce 300 false negatives, responsible after two months of a number of contagions ranging from 526 to 1,132, under the optimistic scenario of a reproduction number between 0.5 to 1. Resources and false negatives increase with the prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: the analysed screening procedure should be avoided unless the prevalence and the rate of contagion are very low. The cost and effectiveness of the screening strategies should be evaluated in the actual context of the epidemic, accounting for the fact that it may change over time.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Computer Simulation , Mass Screening/methods , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Basic Reproduction Number , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing/economics , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , False Negative Reactions , False Positive Reactions , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Mass Screening/economics , Monte Carlo Method , Point-of-Care Testing/economics , Prevalence , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity
8.
BMC Infect Dis ; 23(1): 87, 2023 Feb 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2235110

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Identification of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with rapid and cost-effective test methods is the key for isolating infected individuals, interrupting the transmission chain, and thus, containment of the CoVID-19 disease. In this regard, Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) plays an important role at point of care testing but the low sensitivity attributing towards escape of positive cases is reported as a major disadvantage of RAT which led us to evaluate a RAT kit among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suspected of CoVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed 329 parallel nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT (Zydus Cadila, India) at the point of collection in a hospital-based facility and RealTime RT-PCR in the laboratory. The performance parameters were analyzed by evaluating the specificity, sensitivity, Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity were found to be 75.17% and 98.89% respectively. Positive Predictive value was 98.25% and the negative predictive value was 82.79%. The accuracy between the two techniques was found to be 88.14% with a kappa coefficient of 0.756 (SE: 0.036 and CI at 95%: 0.686 to 0.826) with a good strength of agreement (0.61-0.80) between the two testing techniques. Among the false-negative cases, 22 (59.5%) were asymptomatic having the Cycle Threshold (Ct) range 27 to 32.9 including 12 cases with a history of close contact with the known positive cases (i.e. household contact). The remaining 15 cases (40.5%) were symptomatic having low to moderate Ct values. CONCLUSION: It is observed from the results that the false negative result for symptomatic individuals is a matter of concern as it was noted in 4 cases of our study subjects who required hospitalisation later. Also the positives among asymptomatic contacts are important from epidemiological point of view for isolation and curtailing the infection from spreading in a community. These results support the fact that RAT showing sensitivity below 80% can be used for mass screening purposes with provision for additional testing in case of false negative with symptomatic individuals. Also false-negative results should be interpreted cautiously considering the epidemiological link as well as the clinical condition of the patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Sensitivity and Specificity
9.
Microbiol Spectr ; 10(1): e0245521, 2022 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2193554

ABSTRACT

Containment measures employed during the COVID-19 pandemic included prompt recognition of cases, isolation, and contact tracing. Bilateral nasal (NA) swabs applied to a commercial antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) offer a simpler and more comfortable alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) collection; however, little is known about the sensitivity of this method in an asymptomatic population. Participants in community-based asymptomatic testing sites were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using an Ag-RDT with NP sampling. Positive individuals returned for confirmatory molecular testing and consented to repeating the Ag-RDT using a bilateral NA swab for comparison. Residual test buffer (RTB) from Ag-RDTs was subjected to real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Of 123,617 asymptomatic individuals, 197 NP Ag-RDT-positive participants were included, with 175 confirmed positive by RT-PCR. Of these cases, 154 were identified from the NA swab collection with Ag-RDT, with a sensitivity of 88.0% compared to the NP swab collection. Stratifying results by RT-PCR cycle threshold demonstrated that sensitivity of the nasal collection method varied based on the cycle threshold (CT) value of the paired RT-PCR sample. RT-PCR testing on the RTB from the Ag-RDT using NP and NA swab collections resulted in 100.0% and 98.7% sensitivity, respectively. NA swabs provide an adequate alternative to NP swab collection for use with Ag-RDT, with the recognition that the test is most sensitive in specimens with high viral loads. With the high sensitivity of RT-PCR testing on RTB from Ag-RDT, a more streamlined approach to confirmatory testing is possible without recollection or use of paired collections strategies. IMPORTANCE Nasal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) comes with many benefits but is slightly less sensitive than traditional nasopharyngeal swabbing; however, confirmatory lab-based testing could be performed directly from the residual buffer from either sample type.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/virology , Carrier State/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , Nose/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling/methods , Antigens, Viral/genetics , Antigens, Viral/immunology , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Humans , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/classification , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity
10.
Anal Bioanal Chem ; 413(22): 5619-5632, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2174032

ABSTRACT

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for rapid serological tests that allow multiplexing emerged, as antibody seropositivity can instruct about individual immunity after an infection with SARS-CoV-2 or after vaccination. As many commercial antibody tests are either time-consuming or tend to produce false negative or false positive results when only one antigen is considered, we developed an automated, flow-based chemiluminescence microarray immunoassay (CL-MIA) that allows for the detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD), spike protein (S1 fragment), and nucleocapsid protein (N) in human serum and plasma in less than 8 min. The CoVRapid CL-MIA was tested with a set of 65 SARS-CoV-2 serology positive or negative samples, resulting in 100% diagnostic specificity and 100% diagnostic sensitivity, thus even outcompeting commercial tests run on the same sample set. Additionally, the prospect of future quantitative assessments (i.e., quantifying the level of antibodies) was demonstrated. Due to the fully automated process, the test can easily be operated in hospitals, medical practices, or vaccination centers, offering a valuable tool for COVID-19 serosurveillance. Graphical abstract.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Immunoassay/methods , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antigens, Viral/chemistry , Antigens, Viral/immunology , Automation, Laboratory , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Humans , Immobilized Proteins/chemistry , Immobilized Proteins/immunology , Immune Sera , Immunoassay/instrumentation , Lab-On-A-Chip Devices , Luminescent Measurements , Phosphoproteins/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Time Factors
11.
J Immunol Methods ; 513: 113420, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2165569

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Serologic analysis is an important tool towards assessing the humoral response to COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Numerous serologic tests and platforms are currently available to support this line of testing. Two broad antibody testing categories are point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays and semi-quantitative immunoassays performed in clinical laboratories, which typically require blood collected from a finger-stick and a standard venipuncture blood draw, respectively. This study evaluated the use of dried blood spot (DBS) collections as a sample source for COVID-19 antibody testing using an automated clinical laboratory test system. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-four participants in the BLAST COVID-19 seroprevalence study (NCT04349202) were recruited at the time of a scheduled blood draw to have an additional sample taken via finger stick as a DBS collection. Using the EUROIMMUN assay to assess SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG status, DBS specimens were tested on 7, 14, 21, and 28 days post- collection and compared to the reference serum sample obtained from a blood draw for the BLAST COVID-19 study. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG status from DBS collections demonstrated high concordance with serum across all time points (7-28 days). However, the semi-quantitative value from DBS collections was lower on average than that from serum, resulting in increased uncertainty around the equivocal-to-positive analytical decision point. CONCLUSIONS: DBS collections can be substituted for venipuncture when assaying for COVID-19 IgG antibody, with samples being stable for at least 28 days at room temperature. Finger-stick sampling can therefore be advantageous for testing large populations for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies without the need for phlebotomists or immediate processing of samples. We have high confidence in serostaus determination from DBS collections, although the reduced semi-quantitative value may cause some low-level positives to fall into the equivocal or even negative range.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Testing , Dried Blood Spot Testing , Immunoglobulin G , Phlebotomy , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies
12.
Lab Med ; 52(5): e137-e146, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2135433

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe a cross-institutional approach to verify the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay and to document the kinetics of the serological response. METHODS: We conducted analytical performance evaluation studies using the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay on 5 Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 automated analyzers at 2 academic medical centers. RESULTS: Within-run and between-run coefficients of variance (CVs) for the antibody assay did not exceed 5.6% and 8.6%, respectively, for each institution. Quantitative and qualitative results agreed for lithium heparin plasma, EDTA-plasma and serum specimen types. Results for all SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive and -negative specimens were concordant among analyzers except for 1 specimen at 1 institution. Qualitative and quantitative agreement was observed for specimens exchanged between institutions. All patients had detectable antibodies by day 10 from symptom onset and maintained seropositivity throughout specimen procurement. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance characteristics of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay within and between 2 academic medical center clinical laboratories were acceptable for widespread clinical-laboratory use.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/standards , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sensitivity and Specificity , Virginia
13.
Iran J Immunol ; 18(1): 82-92, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2067500

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapidly transmits in general population, mainly between health-care workers (HCWs) who are in close contact with patients. OBJECTIVE: To study the seropositivity of HCWs as a high-risk group compared to general population. METHODS: 72 samples were obtained from HCWs working in Masih Daneshvari hospital as one of the main COVID-19 admission centers in Tehran, during April 4 to 6, 2020. Also we collected 2021 blood samples from general population. The SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM, and IgG antibodies in the collected serum specimens were measured by commercial ELISA kits. RESULTS: Based on the clinical manifestations, 25.0%, 47.2%, and 27.8% of HCWs were categorized as symptomatic with typical symptoms, symptomatic with atypical symptoms, and asymptomatic, respectively. Symptomatic individuals with typical and atypical symptoms were 63.2% and 36.8% positive in RT-PCR test, respectively. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies were detected in 15.3% and 27.8% of HCWs samples, respectively. Antibody testing in the general population indicated that SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG were found in (162/2021) 8%, and (290/2021) 14.4%, respectively. The frequency of positive cases of IgM and IgG were significantly increased in HCWs compared to general population (p= 0.028 for IgM and p= 0.002 for IgG). CONCLUSION: The frequency of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in HCWs was higher than general population indicating a higher viral transmission via close exposure with COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel , Occupational Health , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Exposure , Predictive Value of Tests , Risk Factors , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Time Factors , Young Adult
14.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264929, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1938420

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness who live in congregate shelters are at high risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission and severe COVID-19. Current screening and response protocols using rRT-PCR in homeless shelters are expensive, require specialized staff and have delays in returning results and implementing responses. METHODS: We piloted a program to offer frequent, rapid antigen-based tests (BinaxNOW) to residents and staff of congregate-living shelters in San Francisco, California, from January 15th to February 19th, 2021. We used the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the implementation. RESULTS: Reach: We offered testing at ten of twelve eligible shelters. Shelter residents and staff had variable participation across shelters; approximately half of eligible individuals tested at least once; few tested consistently during the study. Effectiveness: 2.2% of participants tested positive. We identified three outbreaks, but none exceeded 5 cases. All BinaxNOW-positive participants were isolated or left the shelters. Adoption: We offered testing to all eligible participants within weeks of the project's initiation. Implementation: Adaptations made to increase reach and improve consistency were promptly implemented. Maintenance: San Francisco Department of Public Health expanded and maintained testing with minimal support after the end of the pilot. CONCLUSION: Rapid and frequent antigen testing for SARS-CoV2 in homeless shelters is a viable alternative to rRT-PCR testing that can lead to immediate isolation of infectious individuals. Using the RE-AIM framework, we evaluated and adapted interventions to enable the expansion and maintenance of protocols.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Ill-Housed Persons/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Testing/methods , California , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Housing , Humans , Immunologic Tests/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Pilot Projects , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , San Francisco
15.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 104(3): 115763, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914300

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis-reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)- is expensive and often slow to yield results whereas lateral flow tests can lack sensitivity. METHODS: We tested a rapid, lateral flow antigen (LFA) assay with artificial intelligence read (LFAIR) in subjects from COVID-19 treatment trials (N = 37; daily tests for 5 days) and from a population-based study (N = 88; single test). LFAIR was compared to RT-PCR from same-day samples. RESULTS: Using each participant's first sample, LFAIR showed 86.2% sensitivity (95% CI 73.6%-98.8) and 94.3% specificity (88.8%-99.7%) compared to RT-PCR. Adjusting for days since symptom onset and repeat testing, sensitivity was 97.8% (89.9%-99.5%) on the first symptomatic day and decreased with each additional day. Sensitivity improved with artificial intelligence (AI) read (86.2%) compared to the human eye (71.4%). CONCLUSION: LFAIR showed improved accuracy compared to LFA alone. particularly early in infection.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral , Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral/analysis , Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/standards , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors
16.
PLoS One ; 17(5): e0267566, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910605

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To control COVID-19 pandemic is of critical importance to the global public health. To capture the prevalence in an accurate and timely manner and to understand the mode of nosocomial infection are essential for its preventive measure. METHODS: We recruited 685 healthcare workers (HCW's) at Tokyo Shinagawa Hospital prior to the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine. Sera of the subjects were tested by assays for the titer of IgG against S protein's receptor binding domain (IgG (RBD)) or IgG against nucleocapsid protein (IgG (N)) of SARS-CoV-2. Together with PCR data, the positive rates by these methods were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall positive rates among HCW's by PCR, IgG (RBD), IgG (N) with a cut-off of 1.4 S/C (IgG (N)1.4), and IgG (N) with a cut-off of 0.2 S/C (IgG (N)0.2) were 3.5%, 9.5%, 6.1%, and 27.7%, respectively. Positive rates of HCW's working in COVID-19 ward were significantly higher than those of HCW's working in non-COVID-19 ward by all the four methods. Concordances of IgG (RBD), IgG (N)1.4, and IgG (N)0.2 against PCR were 97.1%, 71.4%, and 88.6%, respectively. By subtracting the positive rates of PCR from that of IgG (RBD), the rate of overall silent infection and that of HCW's in COVID-19 ward were estimated to be 6.0% and 21.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For the prevention of nosocomial infection of SARS-CoV-2, identification of silent infection is essential. For the detection of ongoing infection, periodical screening with IgG (RBD) in addition to PCR would be an effective measure. For the surveillance of morbidity in the population, on the other hand, IgG (N)0.2 could be the most reliable indicator among the three serological tests.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Japan , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
17.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 586, 2022 01 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1900539

ABSTRACT

The performance of a laboratory-developed IgG/IgA flow cytometry-based immunoassay (FCI) using Jurkat T cells stably expressing full-length native S protein was compared against Elecsys electrochemiluminiscent (ECLIA) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA), and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG chemiluminiscent assay (CLIA) (Diasorin S.p.a, Saluggia, IT) for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. A total of 225 serum/plasma specimens from 120 acute or convalescent COVID-19 individuals were included. Overall, IgG/IgA-FCI yielded the highest number of positives (n = 179), followed by IgA-FCI (n = 177), Roche ECLIA (n = 175), IgG-FCI (n = 172) and Diasorin CLIA (n = 154). For sera collected early after the onset of symptoms (within 15 days) IgG/IgA-FCI also returned the highest number of positive results (52/72; 72.2%). Positive percent agreement between FCI and compared immunoassays was highest for Roche ECLIA, ranging from 96.1 (IgG/IgA-FCI) to 97.7% (IgG-FCI), whereas negative percent agreement was higher between FCI and Diasosin CLIA, regardless of antibody isotype. The data suggest that FCI may outperform Roche ECLIA and Diasorin CLIA in terms of clinical sensitivity for serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Flow Cytometry/methods , Immunoassay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Humans , Jurkat Cells , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
18.
Infect Dis (Lond) ; 54(10): 731-737, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1868224

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Current method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is an RT-PCR test on the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. Rapid diagnosis is essential for containing viral spread and triage of symptomatic patients presenting to hospital ER departments. As a faster alternative to RT-PCR, we evaluated a SARS-Cov-2 Rapid Antigen test in symptomatic patients presenting to hospital ER departments. METHODS: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test (SD Biosensor) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: Our study showed inferior performance of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Firstly, because of the lack of specificity, which is potentially life-threatening due to the association of nosocomial-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondly, with a sensitivity of 45.5%, it is impossible to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection, resulting in reflex PCR-testing. Comparison of viral load in RT-PCR positive samples with corresponding antigen results showed a significant difference between antigen positive and negative samples. COVID-19 infection will not be detected in patients admitted to the hospital in an early or late phase, typically associated with low viral loads. Sensitivity increases when testing within 5-7 symptomatic days, but the implementation of this cut-off is impractical in ER settings. However, diagnostic performance is better to detect high viral load (> = 5 log10 copies/mL) linked with contagiousness. CONCLUSION: Our study showed inferior performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test (SD Biosensor) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 which limits its use as a diagnostic gatekeeper in ER departments, but is able to differentiate contagious individuals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Antigens, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL