5 results on '"Adams, Emily R"'
Search Results
2. Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom
- Author
-
Palomino-Padilla, Sandra, Finch, Lorna, de Vos, Margaretha, Savage, Helen Rose, Villa-Castillo, Luz, Hayward, Gail, Cook, Eloïse, Escadafal, Camille, Body, Richard, Adams, Emily R., Ugarte-Gil, Cesar, and Cubas Atienzar, Ana Isabel
- Subjects
COVID-19 Testing ,Multidisciplinary ,Peru ,Humans ,Prospective Studies ,COVID-19 ,SARS-CoV-2 ,United Kingdom - Abstract
Objectives In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom. Methods Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage. Results For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4–67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6–99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0–76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9–99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct Conclusions Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods.
- Published
- 2023
3. Longitudinal profile of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 in a setting from Sub–Saharan Africa: A prospective longitudinal study
- Author
-
Gebrecherkos, Teklay, primary, Kiros, Yazezew Kebede, additional, Challa, Feyissa, additional, Abdella, Saro, additional, Gebreegzabher, Atsbeha, additional, Leta, Dereje, additional, Desta, Abraham, additional, Hailu, Ataklti, additional, Tasew, Geremew, additional, Abdulkader, Mahmud, additional, Tessema, Masresha, additional, Tollera, Getachew, additional, Kifle, Tsigereda, additional, Arefaine, Zekarias Gessesse, additional, Schallig, Henk HDF, additional, Adams, Emily R., additional, Urban, Britta C., additional, de Wit, Tobias F. Rinke, additional, and Wolday, Dawit, additional
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing.
- Author
-
Savage, Helen R., Finch, Lorna, Body, Richard, Watkins, Rachel L., Hayward, Gail, Cook, Eloïse, Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I., Cuevas, Luis E., MacPherson, Peter, and Adams, Emily R.
- Subjects
MEDICAL personnel ,COVID-19 testing ,POINT-of-care testing ,DIAGNOSIS methods ,MEDICAL care - Abstract
Background: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. Methods: Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Findings: Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9–97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0–87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7–19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3–100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3–100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5–1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7–100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1–100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2–98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5–95.5, p = 0.003). Interpretation: In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling in frontline healthcare workers: An observational cohort study.
- Author
-
Walker NF, Byrne RL, Howard A, Nikolaou E, Farrar M, Glynn S, Cheliotis KS, Cubas Atienzar AI, Davies K, Reiné J, Rashid-Gardner Z, German EL, Solórzano C, Blandamer T, Hitchins L, Myerscough C, Gessner BD, Begier E, Collins AM, Beadsworth M, Todd S, Hill H, Houlihan CF, Nastouli E, Adams ER, Mitsi E, and Ferreira DM
- Subjects
- Humans, SARS-CoV-2, Cohort Studies, Retrospective Studies, State Medicine, Health Personnel, Specimen Handling, Nasopharynx, Saliva, COVID-19 diagnosis
- Abstract
Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems worldwide, including the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). We conducted an observational cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers (HCW) working in an acute NHS Trust during the first wave of the pandemic, to answer emerging questions surrounding SARS-CoV-2 infection, diagnosis, transmission and control., Methods: Using self-collected weekly saliva and twice weekly combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) samples, in addition to self-assessed symptom profiles and isolation behaviours, we retrospectively compared SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR of saliva and OP/NP samples. We report the association with contemporaneous symptoms and isolation behaviour., Results: Over a 12-week period from 30th March 2020, 40·0% (n = 34/85, 95% confidence interval 31·3-51·8%) HCW had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by surveillance OP/NP swab and/or saliva sample. Symptoms were reported by 47·1% (n = 40) and self-isolation by 25·9% (n = 22) participants. Only 44.1% (n = 15/34) participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported any symptoms within 14 days of a positive result and only 29·4% (n = 10/34) reported self-isolation periods. Overall agreement between paired saliva and OP/NP swabs was 93·4% (n = 211/226 pairs) but rates of positive concordance were low. In paired samples with at least one positive result, 35·0% (n = 7/20) were positive exclusively by OP/NP swab, 40·0% (n = 8/20) exclusively by saliva and in only 25·0% (n = 5/20) were the OP/NP and saliva result both positive., Conclusions: HCW are a potential source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hospitals and symptom screening will identify the minority of infections. Without routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 screening, it is likely that HCW with SARS-CoV-2 infection would continue to attend work. Saliva, in addition to OP/NP swab testing, facilitated ascertainment of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Combined saliva and OP/NP swab sampling would improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 for surveillance and is recommended for a high sensitivity strategy., Competing Interests: EB and BDG hold Pfizer stock as Pfizer employees. No other relationships or activities exist that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Sources of grant funding are stated (see Financial Disclosures) and affiliations given for each author., (Copyright: © 2023 Walker et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.