Confirmation Of Negative Results Research Articles

Validation of a rapid antigen test as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic populations. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values.

BackgroundEarly diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential to reduce disease spread. Rapid antigen tests have not been sufficiently evaluated in asymptomatic patients to be used as massive population screening tools.MethodsHead-to-head evaluation of Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as SARS-CoV-2 screening tools performed in asymptomatic adults from a semi-closed community in University of Navarra (Spain) from November 2020 to January 2021. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated using RT-PCR as reference method.FindingsRoche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test was performed on 2542 asymptomatic adults in a community with a SARS-CoV-2 incidence of 1·93%. It showed a sensitivity of 71·43% (CI 95%: 56·74 – 83·42) and a specificity of 99·68% (CI 95%: 99·37 - 99·86). Positive Predictive Value was 81·4 (CI 95% 66·6 – 91·61) and Negative Predictive Value was 99·44 (CI 95% 99·06 – 99·69). Test sensitivity was related to viral load, with higher sensitivity in RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values under 25 (93·75%, CI 95%: 71·96 – 98·93), that dropped to 29·41% (CI 95%: 10·31- 55·96) in RT-PCR Ct values above 25.InterpretationThis study suggests that rapid antigen tests are less effective in asymptomatic population, when compared with RT-PCR. Further studies are needed to evaluate different options to improve screenings based on rapid antigen test, such as the use of clinical questionnaires to select higher risk-participants, the confirmation of negative results with RT-PCR or the use of repetitive sequential testing.FundingThis research received no external funding.

Temporal Course of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Positivity in Patients with COVID-19 following the First Clinical Presentation.

Knowledge of the sensitivities of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests beyond 35 days after the clinical onset of COVID-19 is insufficient. We aimed to describe positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 assays employing three different measurement principles over a prolonged period. Two hundred sixty-eight samples from 180 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test followed by serological investigation of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were included. We conducted three chemiluminescence (including electrochemiluminescence assay (ECLIA)), four enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test formats. Positivity rates, as well as positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs), were calculated for each week after the first clinical presentation for COVID-19. Furthermore, combinations of tests were assessed within an orthogonal testing approach employing two independent assays and predictive values were calculated. Heat maps were constructed to graphically illustrate operational test characteristics. During a follow-up period of more than 9 weeks, chemiluminescence assays and one ELISA IgG test showed stable positivity rates after the third week. With the exception of ECLIA, the PPVs of the other chemiluminescence assays were ≥95% for COVID-19 only after the second week. ELISA and LFIA had somewhat lower PPVs. IgM exhibited insufficient predictive characteristics. An orthogonal testing approach provided PPVs ≥ 95% for patients with a moderate pretest probability (e.g., symptomatic patients), even for tests with a low single test performance. After the second week, NPVs of all but IgM assays were ≥95% for patients with low to moderate pretest probability. The confirmation of negative results using an orthogonal algorithm with another assay provided lower NPVs than the single assays. When interpreting results from SARS-CoV-2 tests, the pretest probability, time of blood draw, and assay characteristics must be carefully considered. An orthogonal testing approach increases the accuracy of positive, but not negative, predictions.

Impact of the COVID-19 epidemic at a high-volume facility in gynecological oncology in Tokyo, Japan: a single-center experience

BackgroundThe number of cases of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan have risen since the first case was reported on January 24, 2020, and 6225 infections have been reported as of June 30, 2020. On April 8, 2020, our hospital began screening patients via pre-admission reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and chest computed tomography (CT). Although no patients exhibited apparent pneumonia, treatment delay or changes in treatment plans were required for a few patients based on the results of screening tests. During an emerging infectious disease pandemic, the likelihood of being infected, as well as the disease itself, affects clinical decision making in several ways. We summarized and presented our experience.Case presentationAfter the introduction of pre-admission screening, RT-PCR and CT were performed in 200 and 76 patients, respectively, as of June 30, 2020. The treatment of five patients, including two patients with cervical cancer, two patients with ovarian tumors, and one patient with ovarian cancer, was affected by the results. Two asymptomatic RT-PCR-positive patients did not develop COVID-19, but their treatment was delayed until the confirmation of negative results. The other three patients were RT-PCR-negative, but abnormal CT findings suggested the possibility of COVID-19, which delayed treatment. The patients receiving first-line preoperative chemotherapy for ovarian cancer had clinically evident exacerbations because of the treatment delay.ConclusionDuring the epidemic phase of an emerging infectious disease, we found that COVID-19 has several other effects besides its incidence. The postponing treatment was the most common, therefore, treatment of ovarian tumors and ovarian cancer was considered to be the most likely to be affected among gynecological diseases. Protocols that allow for easy over-diagnosis can be disadvantageous, mainly because of treatment delays, and therefore, the protocols must be developed in light of the local infection situation.

Field Performance of a Thin-Layer Chromatography Assay for Detection of Nevirapine in Umbilical Cord Blood

Purpose: Although cord blood surveillance can measure the effectiveness of nevirapine (NVP)-based programs for the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT), it requires the ability to detect nevirapine in plasma. At present, the only validated method is high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), a technique poorly suited for most resource-constrained settings. Method: We evaluated the field performance for a simple and inexpensive thin-layer chromatography (TLC) assay for NVP detection. We developed a conditional probability model to compare 2 testing algorithms: HPLC alone, and TLC screening followed by HPLC confirmation of negative results. Results: When compared to HPLC, sensitivity of TLC was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.84) and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.69–0.95). In this sample — where overall NVP coverage was 49% — positive predictive value was 0.80 and negative predictive value was 0.72. At baseline with population NVP coverage of 33%, cost per specimen was lower in the TLC-HPLC testing algorithm ($40 vs. $50), and the proportion of false results was acceptable (11%). As population NVP coverage increased, cost-efficiency improved and error rate dropped substantially. Conclusion: TLC is reasonably sensitive and specific for NVP detection. A 2-step testing algorithm incorporating TLC and HPLC provides cost-efficiency at little expense to test performance.