Comparative study of rapid antigen testing and two nucleic acid amplification tests for influenza virus detection.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate rapid antigen detection (RAD) and rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to detect influenza virus (IV). METHODS: The conventional RAD test (Quick Chaser Flu A, B: QC), using silver amplified immunochromatography (Quick Chaser Auto Flu A, B: QCA), as well as two NAATs (Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV: Xpert, cobas Influenza A/B & RSV: cobas) were evaluated using nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected cases of influenza. A reference method was performed using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction according to the manual of the Japanese National Institute of Infectious Disease (NIID). RESULTS: From a total of 177 samples, 51 were positive according to the NIID assay. The kappa (κ) coefficient in Xpert and cobas for influenza A virus (IAV)/influenza B virus (IBV) was 1.00, which was the highest among the four detection assays. However, the κ coefficients in QC and QCA for IAV/IBV were 0.71-0.77 and 0.87-0.89, respectively. The sensitivities of the RAD tests were 41.7% in QC and 50.0% in QCA at < 6 h after onset, and 100.0% in both QC and QCA at 24-48 h after onset. The cycle threshold (Ct) values were significantly lower in the group in which all detection assays were positive for IAV. CONCLUSIONS: Xpert and cobas have comparable analytical performances and are highly useful as influenza virus detection assays. QC and QCA could show false negatives frequently in the early stage of infection and when viral load is low.

Evaluation of false positives in the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test.

INTRODUCTION: Highly sensitive reagents for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed for accurate and rapid diagnosis till date. In this study, we aim to clarify the frequency of false-positive reactions and reveal their details in SARS-CoV-2 quantitative antigen test using an automated laboratory device. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swab samples (n = 4992) and saliva samples (n = 5430) were collected. We measured their SARS-CoV-2 antigen using Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag and performed a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using the Ampdirect™ 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detection Kit as needed. The results obtained from each detection test were compared accordingly. RESULTS: There were 304 nasopharyngeal samples and 114 saliva samples were positive in the Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag test. All positive nasopharyngeal samples in the antigen test were also positive for NAAT. In contrast, only three (2.6%) of all the positive saliva samples in the antigen test were negative for NAAT. One showed no linearity with a dilute solution in the dilution test. Additionally, the quantitative antigen levels of all the three samples did not decrease after reaction with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. CONCLUSIONS: The judgment difference between the quantitative antigen test and NAAT seemed to be caused by non-specific reactions in the antigen test. Although the high positive and negative predictive value of this quantitative antigen test could be confirmed, we should consider the possibility of false-positives caused by non-specific reactions and understand the characteristics of antigen testing. We recommend that repeating centrifugation before measurement, especially in saliva samples, should be performed appropriately.

Clonality investigation of clinical Escherichia coli isolates by polymerase chain reaction-based open-reading frame typing method.

Escherichia coli (E. coli) causes urinary tract infections, pneumonia, surgical site infections, and bloodstream infections and is the important pathogen for both community-acquired and healthcare-associated infections. To investigate the clonality of E. coli is important for infection control and prevention. We aimed to investigate the clonality of clinical E. coli isolates using Cica Geneus E. coli polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based open-reading frame typing (POT) KIT and clarify the clinical usefulness of this kit. About 124 E. coli isolates obtained from inpatients at Sapporo Medical University Hospital were used. The POT method was used to classify 124 clinical isolates into 87 POT numbers. In addition to the clonality, it was possible to obtain additional information that 20 of the 124 isolates were extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) producing E. coli (5 isolates of CTX-M-1 group and 15 isolates of CTX-M-9 group) and 13 were sequence type (ST) 131 clone. Furthermore, when these ESBL-producing 20 isolates were compared with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) or multilocus sequence typing (MLST), Simpson's index of diversity was 0.968 in POT method, 0.979 in PFGE, and 0.584 in MLST. POT method had an analytical power similar to that of PFGE. In conclusion, attention should be paid to the difference in the interpretation of the results between the POT method and the PFGE, but POT method may be useful to timely monitor the spread of E. coli in medical facilities.