The evaluation of a rapid microfluidic immunofluorescence antigen test in detecting the infectiousness of COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: A test-based strategy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the measures to assess the need for isolation and prevention of infection. However, testing with high sensitivity methods, such as quantitative RT-PCR, leads to unnecessary isolation, whereas the lateral flow antigen test shows low sensitivity and false negative results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (Lumira Ag), a rapid microfluidic immunofluorescence method, in assessing infectivity. METHODS: This study was performed from March 2022 to July 2022. A pair of nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained from each patient with mild COVID-19. One swab was used for Lumira Ag testing, and the other for quantitative RT-PCR testing and virus culture. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients were included in the study. Among them, PCR, Lumira Ag test, and virus culture indicated positivity for 82, 66, and 24 patients, respectively. When comparing the Lumira Ag test to virus culture, its sensitivity was 100.0% (24/24), specificity, 30.0% (18/60); positive predictive value, 36.3% (24/66); and negative predictive value (NPV), 100.0% (18/18). The positive sample for virus culture was observed until the ninth day from the onset of symptoms, while the Lumira Ag test was observed until day 11. CONCLUSIONS: The Lumira Ag test showed high sensitivity and NPV (100% each) compared to virus culture. A test-based strategy using the Lumira Ag test can effectively exclude COVID-19 infectiousness.

Clinical evaluation of a fully automated and high-throughput molecular testing system for detection of influenza virus.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the performance of the cobas® 6800 system and cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B, a fully automated molecular testing system for influenza viruses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This enabled an assay in a batch of 96 samples in approximately 3 h. METHODS: An assay was performed using the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B on the cobas 6800 system for samples collected in four facilities between November 2019 and March 2020 in our previous study. The results were compared with those obtained using the reference methods. RESULTS: Of the 127 samples analyzed, the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B detected influenza A virus in 75 samples, of which 73 were positive using the reference methods. No false negative results were observed. The overall positive and negative percent agreement for influenza A virus detection were 100.0% and 96.3%, respectively. There were no positive results for the influenza B virus or SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The cobas 6800 system and cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B showed high accuracy for influenza A virus detection and can be useful for clinical laboratories, especially those that routinely assay many samples.

Multicenter evaluation of molecular point-of-care testing and digital immunoassays for influenza virus A/B and respiratory syncytial virus in patients with influenza-like illness.

INTRODUCTION: Digital immunoassays (DIAs) and molecular point-of-care (POC) tests for influenza were recently developed. We aimed to evaluate and compare the positive rate with molecular POC tests and DIAs in detecting influenza virus A, B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in 2019-2020. Nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected from adult outpatients with influenza-like illness who visited four hospitals and clinics in Japan. DIAs were performed at each facility. The clinical diagnosis was determined based on the findings of DIAs, history taking, and physical assessment. Molecular POC test and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were performed later. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were evaluated. The positive rate for influenza virus with molecular POC test was significantly higher than that with DIAs (51.6% versus 40.7%, p = 0.046). In patients who tested positive for influenza virus with only molecular POC test, the presence of influenza virus was confirmed by RT-PCR. In a comparison between the patients who were positive for influenza virus with only molecular POC test and those with both molecular POC test and DIA, the percentage of patients who sought consultation within 18 h after the onset of symptoms was significantly higher in the molecular POC test only group than in the both methods group (70.0% versus 43.2%, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: A molecular POC test could contribute to the accurate diagnosis of influenza in patients with influenza-like illness, especially those who visited a hospital immediately after the onset of symptoms.