Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 472
Filter
1.
Viruses ; 15(5)2023 05 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20235239

ABSTRACT

Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with false-positive HIV screening tests. The underlying mechanism is unclear, and for clinical cases, evidence beyond a temporal connection is missing. However, several experimental studies point toward SARS-CoV-2 spike/HIV-1 envelope (Env) cross-reactive antibodies (Abs) as a cause. Here, we present the first case of an individual with convalescent SARS-CoV-2 infection testing false positive in both an HIV screening and confirmatory test. Longitudinal sampling showed that the phenomenon was temporary but lasted for at least 3 months before waning. After excluding a multitude of common determinants for assay interference, we further show by antibody depletion studies that SARS-CoV-2-spike-specific Abs did not cross-react with HIV-1 gp120 in the patient sample. No additional case of HIV test interference was identified in a cohort of 66 individuals who presented to a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic. We conclude the SARS-CoV-2-associated HIV test interference to be a temporary process capable of disturbing both screening and confirmatory assays. The assay interference is short-lived and/or rare but should be considered by physicians as a possible explanation for unexpected HIV diagnostic results in patients with a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , COVID-19 Testing
2.
Microbiol Spectr ; 11(3): e0373122, 2023 Jun 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314896

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Indicators and Reagents , Benchmarking , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , COVID-19 Testing
3.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 6991, 2023 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2298911

ABSTRACT

Although infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) does not appear to be as serious a threat to public health as it was in 2020-2021, the increased transmissibility of multiple Omicron descendants may constitute a continuous challenge for health care systems, and reliable detection of new variants is still imperative. This study evaluates the performance of three SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests: Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real Time Multiplex RT-PCR Kit (Liferiver); Vitassay qPCR SARS-CoV-2 (Vitaassay) and TaqPath COVID­19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The analytical sensitivity of the assays as well as their specificity were determined with the use of synthetic nucleic acid standards and clinical samples. All assays appeared to be 100% specific for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in general and the Omicron variant in particular. The LOD determined during this validation was 10 viral RNA copies/reaction for Liferiver and TaqPath and 100 viral RNA copies for Vitassay. We cannot exclude that the LOD for the Vitassay might be lower and close to the manufacturer's declared value of ≥ 20 genome copies/reaction, as we obtained 90% positive results for 10 viral RNA copies/reaction. Mean Ct values at the concentration of 10 viral RNA copies/reaction for the Liferiver, Vitassay and TaqPath kits (35, 37 and 33, respectively) were significantly lower than the cutoff values declared by the manufacturers (≤ 41, ≤ 40 and ≤ 37, respectively). We suggest reporting outcomes based on LOD and cutoff Ct values determined during internal validation rather than those declared by the assays' producers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mustelidae , Animals , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Sensitivity and Specificity , COVID-19 Testing
4.
Intern Emerg Med ; 18(3): 801-809, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2274348

ABSTRACT

With the goal to increase knowledge on the healthcare impact of the post-COVID-19 condition we exploited the administrative claims database of Lombardy, the largest Italian region and the first after China to be heavily hit by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in February-May 2020. We chose to employ the dispensation of drugs and diagnostic tests as proxies of the impact of the post-COVID condition in 46,574 cases who recovered from COVID-19 and were negative at PCR testing within June 20, 2020. Data were obtained throughout the 18-month post-negativization period until December 2021 and results on the use of drugs and diagnostic tests were compared with those accrued in the same cases during the pre-COVID period in July-December 2019. After an increase in the first semester after SARS-CoV-2 negativization (July-December 2020), trends in the dispensation of drugs according to the broad ATC classes and of diagnostic tests decreased or remained substantially stable. However, dispensation of drugs for acid related disorders (A02), diabetes (A10), heparins (B01AB), direct oral anticoagulants (B01AP), antipsychotics (N05A), antidepressants (N06A) and for obstructive airways diseases (R03) was still higher than in the pre-COVID period. These findings, based upon drug and diagnostic test dispensation as proxies of the healthcare impact of the post-COVID condition, show that in a substantial proportion of recovered cases the post-COVID condition is active and clinically relevant 18 months after the acute disease. The findings also provide indirect evidence of the body organs and systems more compromised in the post-COVID period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Delivery of Health Care , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , COVID-19 Testing
5.
NeuroRehabilitation ; 52(3): 515-517, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2259066

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 50% to 80% of people living with dementia worldwide remain undiagnosed and undocumented and have no access to care and treatment. Telehealth services can be utilized as one of the options to improve access to a diagnosis, especially for people living in rural areas or affected by COVID-19 containment measures. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of telehealth assessment for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: A summary of the Cochrane Review by McCleery et al. 2021, with comments from a rehabilitation perspective. RESULTS: Three cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies (N = 136) were included. Participants were referred from primary care when presenting with cognitive symptoms or were identified as being at high risk of having dementia on a screening test in the care homes. The studies found that telehealth assessment correctly identified 80% to 100% of the people who were diagnosed with dementia during face-to-face assessment and also correctly identified 80% to 100% of people who did not have dementia. Only one study (N = 100) focused on MCI; 71% of participants who had MCI and 73% of participants who did not have MCI were correctly identified via telehealth assessment. Telehealth assessment in this study correctly identified 97% of the participants who had either MCI or dementia, but correctly identified only 22% of those who did not have either. CONCLUSION: Telehealth assessment for diagnosing dementia seems to have a good level of accuracy when compared to face-to-face assessment, although the small number of studies and small sample sizes and differences between the included studies indicate that the results are uncertain.


Subject(s)
Alzheimer Disease , COVID-19 , Cognitive Dysfunction , Dementia , Telemedicine , Humans , Dementia/diagnosis , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , COVID-19 Testing
6.
BMC Med ; 21(1): 110, 2023 03 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2285475

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. INFORMATION SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA. RESULTS: We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021289712.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , Network Meta-Analysis , Bias , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Sensitivity and Specificity , COVID-19 Testing
7.
BMC Emerg Med ; 23(1): 28, 2023 03 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2285110

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Bacterial infections are frequently seen in the emergency department (ED), but can be difficult to distinguish from viral infections and some non-infectious diseases. Common biomarkers such as c-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) counts fail to aid in the differential diagnosis. Neutrophil CD64 (nCD64), an IgG receptor, is suggested to be more specific for bacterial infections. This study investigated if nCD64 can distinguish bacterial infections from other infectious and non-infectious diseases in the ED. METHODS: All COVID-19 suspected patients who visited the ED and for which a definitive diagnosis was made, were included. Blood was analyzed using an automated flow cytometer within 2 h after presentation. Patients were divided into a bacterial, viral, and non-infectious disease group. We determined the diagnostic value of nCD64 and compared this to those of CRP and WBC counts. RESULTS: Of the 291 patients presented at the ED, 182 patients were included with a definitive diagnosis (bacterial infection n = 78; viral infection n = 64; non-infectious disease n = 40). ROC-curves were plotted, with AUCs of 0.71 [95%CI: 0.64-0.79], 0.77 [0.69-0.84] and 0.64 [0.55-0.73] for nCD64, WBC counts and CRP, respectively. In the bacterial group, nCD64 MFI was significantly higher compared to the other groups (p < 0.01). A cut-off of 9.4 AU MFI for nCD64 corresponded with a positive predictive value of 1.00 (sensitivity of 0.27, a specificity of 1.00, and an NPV of 0.64). Furthermore, a diagnostic algorithm was constructed which can serve as an example of what a future biomarker prediction model could look like. CONCLUSION: For patients in the ED presenting with a suspected infection, nCD64 measured with automatic flow cytometry, has a high specificity and positive predictive value for diagnosing a bacterial infection. However, a low nCD64 cannot rule out a bacterial infection. For future purposes, nCD64 should be combined with additional tests to form an algorithm that adequately diagnoses infectious diseases.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , COVID-19 , Noncommunicable Diseases , Humans , Neutrophils , Point-of-Care Systems , COVID-19/diagnosis , Biomarkers , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Bacterial Infections/metabolism , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Emergency Service, Hospital , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , COVID-19 Testing
8.
Genève; Organisation mondiale de la Santé; 2023. (WHO/2019-nCoV/Policy_Brief/Surveillance/2023.1).
in French | WHOIRIS | ID: gwh-367098
9.
Ginebra; Organización Mundial de la Salud; 2023. (WHO/2019-nCoV/Policy_Brief/Surveillance/2023.1).
in Spanish | WHOIRIS | ID: gwh-366971
10.
Geneva; World Health Organization; 2023. (WHO/2019-nCoV/Policy_Brief/Surveillance/2023.1).
in English, Chinese, Arabic, Russian | WHOIRIS | ID: gwh-366741
11.
PLoS One ; 18(1): e0279681, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2214787

ABSTRACT

The pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has affected millions of people worldwide. Public health strategies to reduce viral transmission are based on widespread diagnostic testing to detect and isolate contagious patients. Several reverse transcription (RT)-PCR tests, along with other SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays, are available to attempt to cover the global demand. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) based methods have been established as rapid, accurate, point of care diagnostic tests for viral infections; hence, they represent an excellent alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The aim of this study was to develop and describe molecular detection systems for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-LAMP. Recombinant DNA polymerase from Bacillus stearothermophilus and thermostable engineered reverse transcriptase from Moloney Murine Leukemia Virus were expressed using a prokaryotic system and purified by fast protein liquid chromatography. These enzymes were used to set up fluorometric real time and colorimetric end-point RT-LAMP assays. Several reaction conditions were optimized such as reaction temperature, Tris-HCl concentration, and pH of the diagnostic tests. The key enzymes for RT-LAMP were purified and their enzymatic activity was determined. Standardized reaction conditions for both RT-LAMP assays were 65°C and a Tris-HCl-free buffer at pH 8.8. Colorimetric end-point RT-LAMP assay was successfully used for viral detection from clinical saliva samples with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to the results obtained by RT-qPCR based diagnostic protocols with Ct values until 30. The developed RT-LAMP diagnostic tests based on purified recombinant enzymes allowed a sensitive and specific detection of the nucleocapsid gene of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Animals , Mice , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , Sensitivity and Specificity , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , RNA, Viral/genetics , COVID-19 Testing
12.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(6): e29528, 2021 06 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2197929

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 testing remains an essential element of a comprehensive strategy for community mitigation. Social media is a popular source of information about health, including COVID-19 and testing information. One of the most popular communication channels used by adolescents and young adults who search for health information is TikTok-an emerging social media platform. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe TikTok videos related to COVID-19 testing. METHODS: The hashtag #covidtesting was searched, and the first 100 videos were included in the study sample. At the time the sample was drawn, these 100 videos garnered more than 50% of the views for all videos cataloged under the hashtag #covidtesting. The content characteristics that were coded included mentions, displays, or suggestions of anxiety, COVID-19 symptoms, quarantine, types of tests, results of test, and disgust/unpleasantness. Additional data that were coded included the number and percentage of views, likes, and comments and the use of music, dance, and humor. RESULTS: The 100 videos garnered more than 103 million views; 111,000 comments; and over 12.8 million likes. Even though only 44 videos mentioned or suggested disgust/unpleasantness and 44 mentioned or suggested anxiety, those that portrayed tests as disgusting/unpleasant garnered over 70% of the total cumulative number of views (73,479,400/103,071,900, 71.29%) and likes (9,354,691/12,872,505, 72.67%), and those that mentioned or suggested anxiety attracted about 60% of the total cumulative number of views (61,423,500/103,071,900, 59.59%) and more than 8 million likes (8,339,598/12,872,505, 64.79%). Independent one-tailed t tests (α=.05) revealed that videos that mentioned or suggested that COVID-19 testing was disgusting/unpleasant were associated with receiving a higher number of views and likes. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding of an association between TikTok videos that mentioned or suggested that COVID-19 tests were disgusting/unpleasant and these videos' propensity to garner views and likes is of concern. There is a need for public health agencies to recognize and address connotations of COVID-19 testing on social media.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Social Media , Adolescent , Community Networks , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Video Recording , Young Adult
13.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 8(1): e30006, 2022 01 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2197939

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A description of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing the first and second waves could help adapt health services to manage this highly transmissible infection. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the epidemiology of individuals with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the characteristics of patients with a positive test comparing the first and second waves in Catalonia, Spain. METHODS: This study had 2 stages. First, we analyzed daily updated data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals from Girona (Catalonia). Second, we compared 2 retrospective cohorts of patients with a positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction or rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. The severity of patients with a positive test was defined by their admission to hospital, admission to intermediate respiratory care, admission to the intensive care unit, or death. The first wave was from March 1, 2020, to June 24, 2020, and the second wave was from June 25, 2020, to December 8, 2020. RESULTS: The numbers of tests and cases were lower in the first wave than in the second wave (26,096 tests and 3140 cases in the first wave versus 140,332 tests and 11,800 cases in the second wave), but the percentage of positive results was higher in the first wave than in the second wave (12.0% versus 8.4%). Among individuals with a positive diagnostic test, 818 needed hospitalization in the first wave and 680 in the second; however, the percentage of hospitalized individuals was higher in the first wave than in the second wave (26.1% versus 5.8%). The group that was not admitted to hospital included older people and those with a higher percentage of comorbidities in the first wave, whereas the characteristics of the groups admitted to hospital were more alike. CONCLUSIONS: Screening systems for SARS-CoV-2 infection were scarce during the first wave, but were more adequate during the second wave, reflecting the usefulness of surveillance systems to detect a high number of asymptomatic infected individuals and their contacts, to help control this pandemic. The characteristics of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first and second waves differed substantially; individuals in the first wave were older and had a worse health condition.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
14.
Parasitol Res ; 121(7): 1867-1885, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2174153

ABSTRACT

Malaria control measures have been in use for years but have not completely curbed the spread of infection. Ultimately, global elimination is the goal. A major playmaker in the various approaches to reaching the goal is the issue of proper diagnosis. Various diagnostic techniques were adopted in different regions and geographical locations over the decades, and these have invariably produced diverse outcomes. In this review, we looked at the various approaches used in malaria diagnostics with a focus on methods favorably used during pre-elimination and elimination phases as well as in endemic regions. Microscopy, rapid diagnostic testing (RDT), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are common methods applied depending on prevailing factors, each with its strengths and limitations. As the drive toward the elimination goal intensifies, the search for ideal, simple, fast, and reliable point-of-care diagnostic tools is needed more than ever before to be used in conjunction with a functional surveillance system supported by the ideal vaccine.


Subject(s)
Malaria, Falciparum , Malaria , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Goals , Humans , Malaria/diagnosis , Malaria/prevention & control , Malaria, Falciparum/epidemiology , Microscopy/methods , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity
16.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0263549, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119319

ABSTRACT

Since the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a rapid uptake and utilisation of telemedicine in all aspects of healthcare. This presents a key opportunity in surgical site infection surveillance. Remote follow up methods have been used via telephone, with photographs and questionnaires for post-operative reviews with varying results. This review therefore aims to comprehensively synthesise available evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of all forms of SSI telemedicine monitoring. The protocol has been established as per both PRISMA-P (S1 Table) and the Cochrane handbook for reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL will be searched using a complete search strategy developed with librarian input, in addition to google scholar and hand searching. All study designs with patients over 18 and undergone a primarily closed surgical procedure will be eligible. Index tests will include all forms of telemedicine and a subgroup analysis performed for each of these. Comparative tests must include face to face review, and all reference standards will be included again for sub-group analyses. Search results will be screened by two investigators independently with a third providing consensus review on disagreements. Methodological quality will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, first validated by two investigators as per the Cochrane handbook. Exploratory analysis will formulate summary receiver operating characteristic curves and forest plots with estimates of sensitivity and specificity of the included studies. Sources of heterogeneity will be identifying and investigated through further analysis. Potential benefits of telemedicine integration in surgical practice will reduce cost and travel time to patients in addition to avoiding wasted clinic appointments, important considerations in a peri-pandemic era. To avoid missed or further complications, there must be confidence in the ability to diagnose infection. This review will systematically determine whether telemedicine is accurate for surgical site infection diagnosis, which methods are well established and if further research is indicated.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , Surgical Wound Infection/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Pandemics , COVID-19/diagnosis , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Telemedicine/methods , Review Literature as Topic
17.
J Korean Med Sci ; 37(43): e310, 2022 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109726

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Sensitivity and Specificity , Republic of Korea , Antigens, Viral
18.
J Hosp Med ; 17(12): 961-966, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2103590

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reducing unnecessary routine laboratory testing is a Choosing Wisely® recommendation, and new areas of overuse were noted during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To reduce unnecessary repetitive routine laboratory testing for patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic across a large safety net health system. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: This quality improvement initiative was initiated by the System High-Value Care Council at New York City Health + Hospitals (H + H), the largest public healthcare system in the United States consisting of 11 acute care hospitals. INTERVENTION: four overused laboratory tests in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were identified: C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and procalcitonin. A two-pronged electronic health record intervention was implemented consisting of (1) nonintrusive, informational nudge statements placed on selected order sets, and (2) a forcing function of one consecutive day limit on ordering. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The average of excess tests per encounter days (ETPED) for each of four target laboratory testing only in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: Interdisciplinary System High-Value Care Council identified four overused laboratory tests (inflammatory markers) in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19: C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and procalcitonin. Within an 11-hospital safety net health system, a two-pronged electronic health record intervention was implemented consisting of (1) nonintrusive, informational nudge statements placed on selected order sets, and (2) a forcing function of one consecutive day limit on ordering. The preintervention period (March 16, 2020 to January 24, 2021) was compared to the postintervention period (January 25, 2021 to March 22, 2022). RESULTS: Time series linear regression showed decreases in CRP (-17.9%, p < .05), ferritin (-37.6%, p < .001), and LDH (-30.1%, p < .001). Slope differences were significant (CRP, ferritin, and LDH p < 0.001; procalcitonin p < 0.05). Decreases were observed across weekly averages: CRP (-19%, p < .01), ferritin (-37.9%, p < .001), LDH (-28.7%, p < .001), and procalcitonin (-18.4%, p < .05). CONCLUSION: This intervention was associated with reduced routine inflammatory marker testing in non-intensive care unit COVID-19 hospitalized patients across 11 hospitals. Variation was high among individual hospitals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Unnecessary Procedures , Humans , Biomarkers/analysis , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Ferritins/analysis , L-Lactate Dehydrogenase/analysis , Pandemics , Procalcitonin/analysis , Unnecessary Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/statistics & numerical data , New York City
19.
Biosensors (Basel) ; 12(11)2022 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2099353

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has drawn attention to the need for fast and accurate diagnostic testing. Concerns from emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and other circulating respiratory viral pathogens further underscore the importance of expanding diagnostic testing to multiplex detection, as single-plex diagnostic testing may fail to detect emerging variants and other viruses, while sequencing can be too slow and too expensive as a diagnostic tool. As a result, there have been significant advances in multiplex nucleic-acid-based virus diagnostic testing, creating a need for a timely review. This review first introduces frequent nucleic acid targets for multiplex virus diagnostic tests, then proceeds to a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of multiplex assays that incorporate various detection reactions and readout modalities. The performances, advantages, and disadvantages of these assays are discussed, followed by highlights of platforms that are amenable for point-of-care use. Finally, this review points out the remaining technical challenges and shares perspectives on future research and development. By examining the state of the art and synthesizing existing development in multiplex nucleic acid diagnostic tests, this review can provide a useful resource for facilitating future research and ultimately combating COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nucleic Acids , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Pandemics , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL