Search

Clinical studies are generally required to characterize the accuracy of new diagnostic tests. In some cases, historical data are available from a predicate device, which is directly relevant to the new test. If this data can be appropriately incorporated into the new test study design, there is an opportunity to reduce the sample size and trial duration for the new test. One approach to achieve this is the Bayesian power prior method, which allows for the historical information to be down-weighted via a power parameter. We propose a dynamic method to calculate the power parameter based on first comparing the data between the historical and new data sources using a one-sided comparison, and second mapping the comparison probability through a scaled-Weibull discount function to tune the effective sample size borrowed. This pragmatic and conservative approach is embedded in an adaptive trial framework allowing for the trial to stop early for success. An example is presented for a new test developed to detect Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus present in the nasal carriage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Individuals can test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by molecular assays following the resolution of their clinical disease. Recent studies indicate that SARS-CoV-2 antigen–based tests are likely to be positive early in the disease course, when there is an increased likelihood of high levels of infectious virus. Methods Upper respiratory specimens from 251 participants with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset) were prospectively collected and tested with a lateral flow antigen test and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specimens from a subset of the study specimens were utilized to determine the presence of infectious virus in the VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. Results The antigen test demonstrated a higher positive predictive value (90%) than rt-PCR (70%) when compared to culture-positive results. The positive percentage agreement for detection of infectious virus for the antigen test was similar to rt-PCR when compared to culture results. Conclusions The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 antigen and SARS-CoV-2 culture positivity represents a significant advancement in determining the risk for potential transmissibility beyond that which can be achieved by detection of SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA. SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing can facilitate low-cost, scalable, and rapid time-to-result, while providing good risk determination of those who are likely harboring infectious virus, compared to rt-PCR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0–78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surveillance testing for infectious disease is an important tool to combat disease transmission at the population level. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, RT-PCR tests have been considered the gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. However, RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to return positive results when performed to individuals who are past the infectious stage of the disease. Meanwhile, antigen-based tests are often treated as a less accurate substitute for RT-PCR, however, new evidence suggests they may better reflect infectiousness. Consequently, the two test types may each be most optimally deployed in different settings. Here, we present an epidemiological model with surveillance testing and coordinated isolation in two congregate living settings (a nursing home and a university dormitory system) that considers test metrics with respect to viral culture, a proxy for infectiousness. Simulations show that antigen-based surveillance testing coupled with isolation greatly reduces disease burden and carries a lower economic cost than RT-PCR-based strategies. Antigen and RT-PCR tests perform different functions toward the goal of reducing infectious disease burden and should be used accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Tuberculosis (TB) control is hindered by absence of rapid tests to identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and detect isoniazid (INH) and rifampin (RIF) resistance. We evaluated the accuracy of the BD MAX multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB assay (BD MAX) in South Africa, Uganda, India, and Peru. Methods Outpatient adults with signs/symptoms of pulmonary TB were prospectively enrolled. Sputum smear microscopy and BD MAX were performed on a single raw sputum, which was then processed for culture and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST), BD MAX, and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert). Results 1053 participants with presumptive TB were enrolled (47% female; 32% with human immunodeficiency virus). In patients with confirmed TB, BD MAX sensitivity was 93% (262/282 [95% CI, 89–95%]); specificity was 97% (593/610 [96–98%]) among participants with negative cultures on raw sputa. BD MAX sensitivity was 100% (175/175 [98–100%]) for smear-positive samples (fluorescence microscopy), and 81% (87/107 [73–88%]) in smear-negative samples. Among participants with both BD MAX and Xpert, sensitivity was 91% (249/274 [87–94%]) for BD MAX and 90% (246/274 [86–93%]) for Xpert on processed sputa. Sensitivity and specificity for RIF resistance compared with phenotypic DST were 90% (9/10 [60–98%]) and 95% (211/222 [91–97%]), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of INH resistance were 82% (22/27 [63–92%]) and 100% (205/205 [98–100%]), respectively. Conclusions The BD MAX MDR-TB assay had high sensitivity and specificity for detection of MTB and RIF and INH drug resistance and may be an important tool for rapid detection of TB and MDR-TB globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaginal symptoms are a leading cause of primary care visits for women. Individuals exhibiting symptoms often receive laboratory testing based on clinic-specific standards of care. Thus, women seen at a family practice clinic might only receive a vaginitis workup, whereas those seen at a sexually transmitted diseases clinic could be more likely to receive only sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing. Methods The likelihood of STIs was assessed in women from whom samples were tested for vaginitis using a molecular diagnostic assay. Positivity rates for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis DNA, detected using the BD MAX CT/GC/TV assay, were calculated. Concordance between the BD MAX Vaginal Panel and the BD MAX CT/GC/TV assay for detection of T. vaginalis was determined. Results Women with bacterial vaginosis alone or with concurrent Candida spp infections had high rates of coinfection with sexually transmitted infections (24.4%–25.7%); samples from women who were negative for vaginitis had significantly lower positivity rates (7.9%; P <.001). Trichomonas vaginalis results were concordant between the BD MAX Vaginal Panel and the BD MAX CT/GC/TV assay in 559 of 560 samples tested. Conclusions These data suggest, as have other studies, that women with vaginitis symptoms may be at risk for an STI. Molecular testing could provide broad diagnostic coverage for symptomatic women and improve patient management, regardless of the type of clinic in which patients are treated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To determine clinical utility of Onclarity human papillomavirus (HPV) assay for atypical squamous cells-undetermined significance (ASC-US) triage, and the value of HPV genotyping within ASC-US. Methods Women (n = 33,858; 21 years or older) had HPV testing using Onclarity and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2). ASC-US individuals (n = 1,960, 5.8%) were referred to colposcopy. Results Of ASC-US, 39.1% were HPV positive by Onclarity; HPV 16 was the most prevalent genotype (7.4%). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN 2) and CIN 3+ prevalences were 4.4% and 2.2%, respectively. Onclarity had sensitivity for CIN 2+ (85.7%) and CIN 3+ (91.4%), and specificities for CIN 2+ (64.1%) and CIN 3+ (62.0%), similar to HC2. Risks for CIN 3+ were 16.1%, 2.8%, 2.5%, and 2.7% with HPV 16, 18, 45, and 11 other genotypes, respectively. Conclusions Onclarity is clinically validated for ASC-US triage. Through risk stratification, genotyping could help identify women at highest risk for CIN 3+. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine clinical utility of Onclarity human papillomavirus (HPV) assay for atypical squamous cells-undetermined significance (ASC-US) triage, and the value of HPV genotyping within ASC-US.Methods: Women (n = 33,858; 21 years or older) had HPV testing using Onclarity and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2). ASC-US individuals (n = 1,960, 5.8%) were referred to colposcopy.Results: Of ASC-US, 39.1% were HPV positive by Onclarity; HPV 16 was the most prevalent genotype (7.4%). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN 2) and CIN 3+ prevalences were 4.4% and 2.2%, respectively. Onclarity had sensitivity for CIN 2+ (85.7%) and CIN 3+ (91.4%), and specificities for CIN 2+ (64.1%) and CIN 3+ (62.0%), similar to HC2. Risks for CIN 3+ were 16.1%, 2.8%, 2.5%, and 2.7% with HPV 16, 18, 45, and 11 other genotypes, respectively.Conclusions: Onclarity is clinically validated for ASC-US triage. Through risk stratification, genotyping could help identify women at highest risk for CIN 3+. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a medical patient case of bacterial meningitis with multidrug resistant pneumococcus. Clinical manifestations; Treatments instituted; Emergence of cephalosporin-resistant pneumococcal meningitis in the United States; Therapeutic approach for cephalosporin-resistant pneumococcal meningitis.

Differential diagnosis of COVID-19 and/or influenza (flu) at point of care is critical for efficient patient management and treatment of both these diseases. The study presented here characterizes the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A+B ("Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu") triplex assay. The performance for SARS-CoV-2 detection was determined using 298 specimens from patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days from symptom onset (DSO) in comparison with the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase PCR) assay ("Lyra SARS-CoV-2") as the reference. The performance for flu A and flu B detection was determined using 75 influenza-positive and 40 influenza-negative retrospective specimens in comparison with the previously FDA-cleared BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B assay ("Veritor Flu") as the reference. The Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu assay met the FDA EUA acceptance criteria (86.7%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 75.8 to 93.1) for SARS-CoV-2 testing compared to Lyra SARS-CoV-2. The Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu assay also demonstrated 100% agreement with the Veritor Flu for Flu A+B assay. For flu A detection, the lower bound of the 95% CI was 91.2%; for flu B detection, the lower bound was 90.0%. The dual detection capability of Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu for the etiologic agents causing COVID-19 and flu will allow efficient differentiation between the two illnesses, inform disease management, and facilitate optimal treatment. IMPORTANCE COVID-19 and flu are two respiratory illnesses which share similar clinical symptoms. The BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2/Flu assay has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B, the two etiologic agents causing COVID-19 and flu, respectively. This dual detection capability is critical when overlap occurs between the COVID-19 pandemic and the flu season. This triplex assay will allow efficient differentiation between the two respiratory illnesses and support a point-of-care physician diagnosis to facilitate the proper treatment and disease management for patients exhibiting overlapping symptoms.

Real-world data are needed to establish SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) as an effective and reliable approach for SARS-CoV-2 screening. This study included 1,952,931 individuals who provided upper respiratory specimens during SARS-CoV-2 screening at CityMD urgent care locations in the New York metropolitan area from October 2020 to March 2021. Positive and negative results, as determined by the BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Veritor), were obtained for all individuals, with reflex reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing performed on a case-by-case basis, per standard of care. Using verification bias adjustment, two alternative model assumptions were utilized for RAT results with missing reflex RT-PCR results. The worst antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that missing RT-PCR results would show a distribution similar to those RT-PCR results actually obtained, based on symptom category. The best antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that individuals without RT-PCR results had a clinical presentation consistent with RAT results, and, therefore, missing RT-PCR results would agree with RAT results. For patients with symptoms or high-risk exposure, 25.3% ( n = 86,811/343,253) of RAT results were positive; vs. 3.4% ( n = 53,046/1,559,733) positive for asymptomatic individuals without high-risk exposure. Reflex RT-PCR results were obtained from 46.3% ( n = 158,836/343,253) and 13.8% ( n = 215,708/1,559,733) of symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, respectively. RT-PCR confirmed 94.4% (4,265/4,518) of positive and 90.6% (139,759/154,318) of negative RAT results in symptomatic individuals; and confirmed 83.4% (6,693/8,024) of positive and 95.3% (197,955/207,684) of negative RAT results in asymptomatic individuals. Applied assumptions for missing reflex RT-PCR results led to worst performance sensitivity estimates of 77.2 and 38.5% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations, respectively; assumptions for best performance estimates led to sensitivity values of 85.6 and 84.2%, respectively. Specificity values, regardless of assumptions or symptom category, ranged from 97.9-99.9%. At 10% SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, RAT positive predictive value was 86.9 and 99.0% for worst and best performance estimates across the total population, respectively; negative predictive values were >95% regardless of the applied assumption. Veritor test performance was consistent with that listed in the manufacturer instructions for use for symptomatic individuals. Real-world evidence should be gathered on RATs to support their efficacy as SARS-CoV-2 persists., Competing Interests: VP and LC are employees of Becton, Dickinson and Company. CC was an employee of Becton, Dickinson and Company at the time of preparation for this manuscript. AP, DF, and KL are employees of Summit Health, which is the parent company of CityMD., (Copyright © 2022 Parikh, Cooper, Frogel, Le Benger, Cooper and Parvu.)

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 is the standard approach for confirming COVID-19 cases. This study compared results between two emergency use authorization (EUA) NAATs, with two additional EUA NAATs utilized for discrepant testing. The limits of detection (LOD) for the BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for the BD MAX system (MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay), the bioMérieux BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 (BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay), the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay), and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay Panther (Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay) NAAT systems were determined using a total of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens with 7 target levels for each comparator. The positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay, compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, was evaluated in a postmarket clinical study utilizing 708 nasopharyngeal specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 cases. Discordant testing was achieved using the cobas and BioFire SARS-CoV-2 NAATs. In this study, the measured LOD for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay (251 copies/ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 186 to 427) was comparable to the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (298 copies/ml; 95% CI, 225 to 509) and the BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay (302 copies/ml; 95% CI, 219 to 565); the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay had an LOD of 612 copies/ml (95% CI, 474 to 918). The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay had a PPA of 100% (95% CI, 97.3% to 100.0%) and an NPA of 96.7% (95% CI, 94.9% to 97.9%) compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. The clinical performance of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay agreed with another sensitive EUA assay.

The objective of this study was to determine the result reproducibility and performance of the BD Onclarity human papillomavirus (HPV) assay (Onclarity) on the BD Viper LT platform using both contrived and clinical specimens. Reproducibility was assessed in BD SurePath liquid-based cytology (LBC) medium (SurePath) using contrived panels (HPV genotype 16 [HPV16] positive, HPV18 positive, or HPV45 positive) or clinical specimens (HPV16, -18, -31, -33/58, -45, or -52 positive or HPV negative). In addition, specimens from 3,879 individuals from the Onclarity trial were aliquoted prior to or following cytology processing and tested for HPV. Finally, specimens were collected using either the Cervex-Brush or Cytobrush (or Cytobrush/spatula) for comparison of HPV results. Contrived specimens showed >95% concordance with the expected results, and pooled clinical specimens had standard deviations and coefficients of variation ranging from 0.87 to 1.86 and 2.9% to 5.6%, respectively. For precytology and postcytology aliquot analyses, specimens showed >98.0% overall agreement and mean differences in cycle threshold ( C T ) scores for HPV ranging from -0.07 to 0.31. Positivity rates were close between the Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush/spatula for all age groups tested. Onclarity results are reproducible and reliable, regardless of sample collection before or after cytology aliquoting. Onclarity performs well regardless of the method of specimen collection (Cervex-Brush or Cytobrush/spatula) for cervical cancer screening., (Copyright © 2020 Young et al.)

The clinical performance of the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (Veritor), a chromatographic immunoassay used for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing, was evaluated using nasal specimens from individuals with COVID-19 symptoms. Two studies were completed to determine clinical performance. In the first study, nasal specimens and either nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens from 251 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset [DSO], ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare Veritor with the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (Lyra). In the second study, nasal specimens from 361 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤5 DSO, ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare performance of Veritor to that of the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2). The positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) were the primary outcomes. In study 1, the PPA for Veritor, compared to Lyra, ranged from 81.8 to 87.5% across the 0 to 1 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges. In study 2, Veritor had PPA, NPA, and OPA values of 97.4, 98.1, and 98.1%, respectively, with Sofia 2. Discordant analysis showed one Lyra positive missed by Veritor and five Lyra positives missed by Sofia 2; one Veritor positive result was negative by Lyra. Veritor met FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing for the 0 to 5 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges (PPA values of 83.9% and 82.4%, respectively). Veritor and Sofia 2 showed a high degree of agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Veritor test allows for more rapid COVID-19 testing utilizing easy-to-collect nasal swabs but demonstrated <100% PPA compared to PCR., (Copyright © 2020 Young et al.)

Vaginitis is a common complaint, diagnosed either empirically or using Amsel's criteria and wet mount microscopy. This study sought to determine characteristics of an investigational test (a molecular test for vaginitis), compared to reference, for detection of bacterial vaginosis, Candida spp., and Trichomonas vaginalis Vaginal specimens from a cross-sectional study were obtained from 1,740 women (≥18 years old), with vaginitis symptoms, during routine clinic visits (across 10 sites in the United States). Specimens were analyzed using a commercial PCR/fluorogenic probe-based investigational test that detects bacterial vaginosis, Candida spp., and Trichomonas vaginalis Clinician diagnosis and in-clinic testing (Amsel's test, potassium hydroxide preparation, and wet mount) were also employed to detect the three vaginitis causes. All testing methods were compared to the respective reference methods (Nugent Gram stain for bacterial vaginosis, detection of the Candida gene its2 , and Trichomonas vaginalis culture). The investigational test, clinician diagnosis, and in-clinic testing were compared to reference methods for bacterial vaginosis, Candida spp., and Trichomonas vaginalis The investigational test resulted in significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive value than clinician diagnosis or in-clinic testing. In addition, the investigational test showed a statistically higher overall percent agreement with each of the three reference methods than did clinician diagnosis or in-clinic testing. The investigational test showed significantly higher sensitivity for detecting vaginitis, involving more than one cause, than did clinician diagnosis. Taken together, these results suggest that a molecular investigational test can facilitate accurate detection of vaginitis., (Copyright © 2018 Schwebke et al.)