Search

Current strategies to promptly, effectively, and equitably screen people with tuberculosis (TB) and link them to diagnosis and care are insufficient; new approaches are required to find the millions of people around the world with TB who are missed each year. Interventions also need to be designed considering how people interact with health care facilities and where appropriate should be suitable for use in the community. Here, the historical, new, and reemerging technologies that are being utilised for TB diagnosis globally are discussed, whilst highlighting that how we use and evaluate tests is just as important as the tests themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND. Although recent epidemiological data suggest that pneumococci may contribute to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 disease, cases of coinfection with Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during hospitalization have been reported infrequently. This apparent contradiction may be explained by interactions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and pneumococci in the upper airway, resulting in the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from protective host immune responses. METHODS. Here, we investigated the relationship of these 2 respiratory pathogens in 2 distinct cohorts of health care workers with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by systematic screening and patients with moderate to severe disease who presented to the hospital. We assessed the effect of coinfection on host antibody, cellular, and inflammatory responses to the virus. RESULTS. In both cohorts, pneumococcal colonization was associated with diminished antiviral immune responses, which primarily affected mucosal IgA levels among individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection and cellular memory responses in infected patients. CONCLUSION. Our findings suggest that S. pneumoniae impair host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and raise the question of whether pneumococcal carriage also enables immune escape of other respiratory viruses and facilitates reinfection. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ISRCTN89159899 (FASTER study) and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03502291 (LAIV study)., Introduction Despite the widespread global effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, few reports have assessed potential interactions between upper airway bacterial colonization and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus [...]

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]

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.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the commercialization of many antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), requiring independent evaluations. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom. The collected samples (446 nasal swabs from Brazil and 246 nasopharyngeal samples from the UK) were analyzed by the Ag-RDT and compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was performed using direct culture supernatants of SARS-CoV-2 strains from the wild-type (B.1), Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Gamma (P.1), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) lineages. An overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3 to 93.3) and 100.0% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100.0), respectively, were obtained for the Brazilian and UK cohorts. The analytical limit of detection was determined as 1.0 × 10 3 PFU/mL (Alpha), 2.5 × 10 2 PFU/mL (Delta), 2.5 × 10 3 PFU/mL (Gamma), and 1.0 × 10 3 PFU/mL (Omicron), giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1 × 10 4 copies/mL, 9.0 × 10 5 copies/mL, 1.7 × 10 6 copies/mL, and 1.8 × 10 5 copies/mL for the Ag-RDT, respectively. Overall, while a higher sensitivity was claimed by the manufacturers than that found in this study, this evaluation finds that the Ag-RDT meets the WHO minimum performance requirements for sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 Ag-RDTs. This study illustrates the comparative performance of the Hotgen Ag-RDT across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods. IMPORTANCE Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have witnessed growing numbers of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) being brought to market. In the United Kingdom, this was somewhat controlled indirectly as the government offered free tests from a small number of companies. However, as this has now ceased, individuals are responsible for their own acquisition of test kits. Similarly in Brazil, as of January 2022, pharmacies and other health care retailers are permitted to sell Ag-RDTs directly to the community. Many of these Ag-RDTs have not been externally evaluated, and results are not readily available to the public. Thus, there is now a need for a transparent evaluation of Ag-RDTs with both analytical and clinical evaluation. We present an independent review of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom.