ABSTRACT
Introduction: Rapid qualitative antigen testing has been widely used for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 with nasopharyngeal samples. Saliva samples have been used as alternative samples, but the analytical performance of those samples for qualitative antigen testing has not been sufficiently evaluated. Methods: A prospective observational study evaluated the analytical performance of three In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) approved COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits for saliva between June 2022 and July 2022 in Japan using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a reference. A nasopharyngeal sample and a saliva sample were simultaneously obtained, and RT-PCR was performed. Results: In total, saliva samples and nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 471 participants (140 RT-PCR-positive saliva samples and 143 RT-PCR-positive nasopharyngeal samples) for the analysis. The median Ct values were 25.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 21.9-28.8) for saliva samples and 17.1 (IQR: 15.5-18.7) for nasopharyngeal samples (p<0.001). Compared with saliva samples of RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity were 46.4% and 99.7% for ImunoAce SARS-CoV-2 Saliva, 59.3% and 99.1% for Espline SARS-CoV-2 N, and 61.4% and 98.8% for QuickChaser Auto SARS-CoV-2, respectively. The sensitivity is >90% for saliva samples with a moderate-to-high viral load (Ct<25), whereas the sensitivity is <70% for high-viral-load nasopharyngeal samples (Ct<20). Conclusion: COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits with saliva showed high specificities, but the sensitivities varied among kits, and the analytical performance of saliva qualitative antigen detection kits was much worse than that of kits using nasopharyngeal samples.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionAntigen testing is essential in the clinical management of COVID-19. However, most evaluations of antigen tests have been performed before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Thus, an assessment of the diagnostic performance of antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during the circulation of Omicron variant is required. MethodsThis prospective observational study evaluated QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, a rapid antigen detection test between December 2021 and February 2022 in Japan, using real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR as a reference. Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen testing and for RT-PCR. Variant analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing was also performed. ResultsIn total, nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 1,073 participants (417 positive; 919 symptomatic; 154 asymptomatic) for analysis. Compared with those of RT-PCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.2% (95% CI: 91.6%-96.3%), 99.5% (95% CI: 98.7%-99.9%), 99.2% (95% CI: 97.8%-99.8%), and 96.5% (95% CI: 94.8%-97.7%), respectively. The sensitivity among symptomatic individuals was 94.3% (95% CI: 91.5%-96.4%). Overall, 85.9% of sequences were classified as Omicron sublineage BA.1, 12.4% were Omicron sublineage BA.2, and 1.6% were Delta B.1.617.2. (Delta variant). Most of the samples (87.1%) had Ct values <25. ConclusionsThe QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag test showed high diagnostic performance for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 from nasopharyngeal samples.
ABSTRACT
Background and ObjectivePoint-of-care type molecular diagnostic tests have been used for detecting SARS-CoV-2, although their clinical utility with nasal samples has yet to be established. This study evaluated the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza AB (Liat) in nasal samples. MethodsNasal and nasopharyngeal samples were collected and were tested using the Liat, the cobas 6800 system and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza AB (cobas), and a method developed by National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan (NIID). ResultsA total of 814 nasal samples were collected. The Liat assay was positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 113 (13.9%). The total, positive, and negative concordance rate between the Liat and cobas/NIID assays were 99.3%/98.4%, 99.1%/100%, and 99.3%/98.2%, respectively. Five samples were positive only using the Liat assay. Their Ct values ranged from 31.9 to 37.2. The Ct values of the Liat assay were significantly lower (p < 0.001) but were correlated (p < 0.001) with those of other molecular assays. In the participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the Liat assay using nasopharyngeal samples, 88.2% of their nasal samples also tested positive using the Liat assay. ConclusionThe Liat assay showed high concordance with other molecular assays in nasal samples. Some discordance occurred in samples with Ct values > 30 on the Liat assay. Key PointsO_LIThe cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza AB assay showed high concordance with other molecular assays in nasal and nasopharyngeal samples, providing results within 20 minutes. C_LIO_LISome discordance occurred in samples with Ct values > 30 on the Liat assay. C_LIO_LIThe Liat assay may be suitable for use in a variety of clinical situations, primarily where accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is necessary. C_LI
ABSTRACT
IntroductionSince respiratory sample collection is an uncomfortable experience, simultaneous detection of pathogens with a single swab is preferable. We prospectively evaluated the clinical performance of a newly developed antigen test QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag (Denka Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) which can detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses at the same time with a single testing device. MethodsIncluded were those who were suspected of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and referred to a PCR center at Ibaraki prefecture in Japan, between August 2, 2021 to September 13, 2021, when the L452R mutant strains of SARS-CoV-2 were prevalent. Additional nasopharyngeal samples and anterior nasal samples were obtained for the antigen test and were compared with a reference reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) using nasopharyngeal samples. ResultsIn total, 1510 nasopharyngeal samples and 862 anterior nasal samples were evaluated. For SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 80.9% and 99.8%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity using anterior nasal samples were 67.8% and 100%, respectively. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivities increased to 88.3% with nasopharyngeal samples and 73.7% with anterior nasal samples. There were three cases of discrepant results between the antigen test and the real-time RT-PCR. All of them were positive with the antigen test but negative with the real-time RT-PCR in SARS-CoV-2 detection. During the study period, influenza viruses were not detected. ConclusionA combo kit, QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag, showed an acceptable sensitivity and sufficient specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, especially using nasopharyngeal sample collected from symptomatic patients.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionSmart Gene is a point-of-care (POC)-type automated molecular testing platform that can be performed with 1 minute of hands-on-time. Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 is a newly developed Smart Gene molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The analytical and clinical performance of Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 has not been evaluated. MethodsNasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples were prospectively collected from subjects referred to the local PCR center from March 25 to July 5, 2021. Two swabs were simultaneously obtained for the Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 assay and the reference real-time RT-PCR assay, and the results of Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 were compared to the reference real-time RT-PCR assay. ResultsAmong a total of 1150 samples, 68 of 791 nasopharyngeal samples and 51 of 359 anterior nasal samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the reference real-time RT-PCR assay. In the testing of nasopharyngeal samples, Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed the total, positive and negative concordance of 99.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.4-99.7%), 94.1% (95% CI: 85.6-98.4%) and 99.7% (95% CI: 99.0-100%), respectively. For anterior nasal samples, Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed the total, positive and negative concordance of 98.9% (95% CI: 97.2-99.7%), 98.0% (95% CI: 89.6-100%) and 99.0% (95% CI: 97.2-99.8%), respectively. In total, 5 samples were positive in the reference real-time RT-PCR and negative in Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2, whereas 5 samples were negative in the reference real-time RT-PCR and positive in Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2. ConclusionSmart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed sufficient analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionGENECUBE(R) is a rapid molecular identification system, and previous studies demonstrated that GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 showed excellent analytical performance for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) with nasopharyngeal samples. However, other respiratory samples have not been evaluated. MethodsThis prospective comparison between GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 and reference real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using anterior nasal samples and saliva samples. Additionally, we evaluated a new rapid examination protocol using GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 with saliva samples. For the rapid protocol, in the preparation of saliva samples, purification and extraction processes were adjusted, and the total process time was shortened to approximately 35 minutes. ResultsFor 359 anterior nasal samples, the total-, positive-, and negative concordance of the two assays was 99.7% (358/359), 98.1% (51/52), and 100% (307/307), respectively. For saliva samples, the total-, positive-, and negative concordance of the two assays was 99.6% (239/240), 100% (56/56), and 99.5% (183/184), respectively. With the new protocol, total-, positive-, and negative concordance of the two assays was 98.8% (237/240), 100% (56/56), and 98.4% (181/184), respectively. In all discordance cases, SARS-CoV-2 was detected by additional molecular examinations. ConclusionGENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 provided high analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in anterior nasal samples and saliva samples.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionDigital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. MethodsWe prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and RT-PCR. Real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, using a method developed by the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan, served as the reference RT-PCR method. ResultsDuring the study period, 1,127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%-87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%-98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%-81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%-99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%-96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%-93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively. ConclusionsThe findings indicated that RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2 analysis with the DIA device had sufficient analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples. When positive DIA results are recorded without a visually recognizable red line at the positive line location on the test cassette, additional RT-PCR evaluation should be performed.
ABSTRACT
Antigen tests for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 sometimes show positive lines earlier than their specified read time, although the implication of getting the results at earlier time is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of an antigen test by evaluating the time period to get positive results and by comparing the test sensitivity with that of a digital immunoassay (DIA) test. We prospectively collected additional nasopharyngeal samples from patients who had already tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR. The additional swab was used for an antigen test, QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, and the time periods to get positive results were measured. The sensitivity of QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag was also compared with that of a DIA. In 84 of 96 (87.5%) analyzed cases, the results of QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag were positive. The time to obtain positive results was 15.0 seconds in median (inter quartile range: 12.0-33.3, range 11-736), and was extended in samples with higher cycle thresholds (Ct) (p<0.001). Positive lines appeared within a minute in 85.7% of cases and within 5 minutes in 96.4%. The sensitivities of QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag and the DIA were 87.5% (95% confident interval [CI]: 79.2%-93.4%) and 88.6% (95%CI: 75.4%- 96.2%), respectively. Their results were concordant in 90.9% of cases, with discrepancies present only in cases with Ct values >32. QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag immediately showed positive results in most cases, and the time to a positive reaction may have indicated the viral load. In addition, the sensitivity of the test was comparable to the DIA.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionRapid antigen tests are convenient for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, they have lower sensitivities than nucleic acid amplification tests. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of Quick Chaser(R) Auto SARS-CoV-2, a novel digital immunochromatographic assay that is expected to have higher sensitivity than conventional antigen tests. MethodsA prospective observational study was conducted between February 8 and March 24, 2021. We simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples, one for evaluation with the QuickChaser(R) Auto SARS-CoV-2 antigen test and the other for assessment with reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), considered the gold-standard reference test. The limit of detection (LOD) of the new antigen test was compared with those of four other commercially available rapid antigen tests. ResultsA total of 1401 samples were analyzed. SARS-CoV-2 was detected by reference RT-PCR in 83 (5.9%) samples, of which 36 (43.4%) were collected from symptomatic patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 74.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 64.0-83.6%), 99.8% (95% CI: 99.5-100%), 96.9% (95% CI: 89.2-99.6%), and 98.4% (95% CI: 97.6-99.0%), respectively. When limited to samples with a cycle threshold (Ct) <30 or those from symptomatic patients, the sensitivity increased to 98.3% and 88.9%, respectively. The QuickChaser(R) Auto SARS-CoV-2 detected 34-120 copies/test, which indicated greater sensitivity than the other rapid antigen tests. ConclusionsQuickChaser(R) Auto SARS-CoV-2 showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity in clinical samples of symptomatic patients. The sensitivity was comparable to RT-PCR in samples with Ct<30.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionAntigen testing may help screen for and detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in asymptomatic individuals. However, limited data regarding the diagnostic performance of antigen tests for this group are available. MethodsWe used clinical samples to prospectively evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the antigen test QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag. This study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7, 2020 and January 9, 2021. Two nasopharyngeal samples per patient were obtained with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test, and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). The diagnostic performance of the antigen test was compared between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, and the RT-PCR results were used as a reference. ResultsAmong the 1,934 collected samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected by real-time RT-PCR in 188 (9.7%); 76 (40.4%) of these samples were from asymptomatic individuals. Over half of the total samples (1,073; 55.5%) were obtained from asymptomatic volunteers. The sensitivity of the antigen test was significantly lower for asymptomatic group than for symptomatic patients (67.1% vs 89.3%, p < 0.001). The specificity was 100% for both groups, and no false positives were observed among all 1,934 samples. The median Ct value for the asymptomatic group was significantly higher than that of the symptomatic group (24 vs 20, p < 0.001). ConclusionsThe QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag showed a lower sensitivity for asymptomatic group than for symptomatic patients. However, its specificity was consistently high, and no false positives were found in this study.
ABSTRACT
We conducted a prospective study in Japan to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the antigen test QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag using anterior nasal samples and to compare the degrees of coughs or sneezes induction and the severity of pain between anterior nasal collection and nasopharyngeal collection. A total of 862 participants were included in the analysis. In comparison to the findings of reverse transcription PCR using nasopharyngeal samples, the antigen test using anterior nasal samples showed 72.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.3%-84.1%) and 100% specificity (95% CI: 99.3%-100%). Anterior nasal collection was associated with a significantly lower degree of coughs or sneezes induction and the severity of pain in comparison to nasopharyngeal collection (p < 0.001). The antigen test using anterior nasal samples showed moderate sensitivity but was less painful and induced fewer coughs or sneezes.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundMolecular tests are the mainstay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, their accessibility can be limited by the long examination time and inability to evaluate multiple samples at once. This study evaluated the analytical performance of the newly developed rapid molecular assays GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 and the GENECUBE(R) FLU A/B. MethodThis prospective study was conducted between December 14, 2020, and January 9, 2021, at a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) center. Samples were collected from the nasopharynx with flocked swabs. Molecular tests were performed with the GENECUBE(R) system and reference reverse transcription (RT)-PCR, and the results of the two assays were compared. ResultAmong 1065 samples, 81 (7.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the reference RT-PCR. Three showed discordance between GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 and the reference RT-PCR; the total, positive and negative samples of concordance for the two assays were 99.7%, 100%, and 99.7%, respectively. All discordant cases were positive for GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 and negative for the reference RT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 was detected from all three samples by another molecular assay for SARS-CoV-2. For the GENECUBE(R) FLU A/B, the total, positive and negative samples of concordance for the two assays were 99.5%, 100%, and 99.1%. ConclusionThe GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 and GENECUBE(R) FLU A/B demonstrated sufficient analytical performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus A/B. Key pointsWe prospectively evaluated the analytical performance of the newly developed rapid molecular assays GENECUBE(R) HQ SARS-CoV-2 and the GENECUBE(R) FLU A/B. The two assays showed >99% concordance rate compared with a reference PCR, which indicated their sufficient analytical performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus A/B.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionSeveral antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed worldwide, but their clinical utility has not been well established. In this study, we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, a newly developed antigen test in Japan. MethodsThis prospective observational study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7 and December 5, 2020. The included patients were referred from a local public health center and 89 primary care facilities. We simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). Using the results of real-time RT-PCR as a reference, the performance of the antigen test was evaluated. ResultsA total of 1186 patients were included in this study, and the real-time RT-PCR detected SARS-CoV-2 in 105 (8.9%). Of these 105 patients, 33 (31.4%) were asymptomatic. The antigen test provided a 98.8% (95% confident interval [CI]: 98.0%-99.4%) concordance rate with real-time RT-PCR, along with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 78.6%-92.5%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 99.7%-100%). False-negatives were observed in 14 patients, 8 of whom were asymptomatic and had a low viral load (cycle threshold (Ct) >30). In symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 91.7% (95% CI: 82.7%-96.9%). ConclusionQuickNavi-COVID19 Ag showed high specificity and sufficient sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. This test is a promising potential diagnostic modality especially in symptomatic patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy has been found to reduce low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in large trials. We sought to examine the differential effect of ezetimibe on MACEs when added to statins according to the presence of diabetes. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials with a sample size of at least 50 participants and at least 24 weeks of follow-up that compared ezetimibe-statin combination therapy with a statin- or placebo-controlled arm and reported at least one MACE, stratified by diabetes status, were included in the meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: A total of seven trials with 28,191 enrolled patients (mean age, 63.6 years; 75.1% men; 7,298 with diabetes [25.9%]; mean follow-up, 5 years) were analysed. MACEs stratified by diabetes were obtained from the published data (two trials) or through direct contact (five trials). No significant heterogeneity was observed among studies (I 2=14.7%, P=0.293). Ezetimibe was associated with a greater reduction of MACE risk in subjects with diabetes than in those without diabetes (pooled relative risk, 0.84 vs. 0.93; P heterogeneity=0.012). In the meta-regression analysis, the presence of diabetes was associated with a greater reduction of MACE risk when ezetimibe was added to statins (β=0.87, P=0.038). CONCLUSION: Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy was associated with greater cardiovascular benefits in patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes. Our findings suggest that ezetimibe-statin combination therapy might be a useful strategy in patients with diabetes at a residual risk of MACEs.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Arm , Cholesterol, LDL , Diabetes Mellitus , Ezetimibe , Follow-Up Studies , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors , Myocardial Infarction , Population Characteristics , Sample Size , StrokeABSTRACT
Generally, the adults can manage their own medications of prescribed drugs. However, medication assistance may be required in the elderly. The family plays a medication assistance, in home, which is afraid to be a burden on the family. In this study, we performed questionnaire survey to caregiver using our day-service center so that we study the actual situation of the medication assistance. From the result of the survey, 64% of caregivers were older than 60 years old. Sixty six percents of caregivers felt some kind of burdens for management of medicine, and 70% felt a burden for medication assistances. The multiple regression analysis showed that “the burden about management of the medicine” and “the degree of medication assistances” significantly affected a sense of the burden about medication assistances (p<0.01). In addition, from the free comment on the questionnaire, it was considered that some caregivers foster a sense of the burden about medication assistances by their strong sense of mission. From these results, it is shown that many caregivers felt a burden on medication assistance. It is suggested that the intervention of pharmacists can be reduce the burden of medication assistance.
