Search

Background: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Information sources: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. Outcome measures: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. Data synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA. Results: We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70–0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98–0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88–0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97–0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83–1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69–1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48–0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44–1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined. Conclusions: Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021289712 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid diagnostic tests have revolutionized the HIV response in low resource and high HIV prevalence settings. However, disconcerting levels of misdiagnosis at the point-of-care call for research into their root causes. As rapid HIV tests are technologies that cross borders and have inscribed within them assumptions about the context of implementation, we set out to explore the (mis)match between intended and actual HIV testing practices in Zimbabwe. Methods: We examined actual HIV testing practices through participant observations in four health facilities and interviews with 28 rapid HIV testers. As time was identified as a key sphere of influence in thematic analyses of the qualitative data, a further layer of analysis juxtaposed intended (as scripted in operating procedures) and actual HIV testing practices from a temporal perspective. Results: We uncover substantial discrepancies between the temporal flows assumed and inscribed into rapid HIV test kits (their intended use) and those presented by the high frequency testing and low resource and staffing realities of healthcare settings in Zimbabwe. Aside from pointing to temporal root causes of misdiagnosis, such as the premature reading of test results, our findings indicate that the rapidity of rapid diagnostic technologies is contingent on a slow, steady, and controlled environment. This not only adds a different dimension to the meaning of "rapid" HIV testing, but suggests that errors are embedded in the design of the diagnostic tests and testing strategies from the outset, by inscribing unrealistic assumptions about the context within which they used. Conclusion: Temporal analyses can usefully uncover difficulties in attuning rapid diagnostic test technologies to local contexts. Such insight can help explain potential misdiagnosis 'crisis points' in point-of-care testing, and the need for public health initiatives to identify and challenge the underlying temporal root causes of misdiagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Conventional turnaround time (TAT) for positive blood culture (PBC) identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is 2–3 days. We evaluated the TAT and ID/AST performance using clinical and seeded samples directly from PBC bottles with different commercial approaches: (1) Accelerate Pheno® system (Pheno) for ID/AST; (2) BioFire® FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel and/ or BCID2 for ID; (3) direct AST by VITEK® 2 (direct AST); and (4) overnight culture using VITEK® 2 colony AST. Results : A total of 141 PBC samples were included in this evaluation. Using MALDI-TOF (Bruker MALDI Biotyper) as the reference method for ID, the overall monomicrobial ID sensitivity/specificity are as follows: Pheno 97.9/99.9%; BCID 100/100%; and BCID2 100/100%, respectively. For AST performance, broth microdilution (BMD) was used as the reference method. For gram-negatives, overall categorical and essential agreements (CA/EA) for each method were: Pheno 90.3/93.2%; direct AST 92.6/88.5%; colony AST 94.4/89.5%, respectively. For gram-positives, the overall CA/EAs were as follows: Pheno 97.2/98.89%; direct AST 97.2/100%; colony AST 97.2/100%, respectively. The BCID/BCID2 and direct AST TATs were around 9–20 h (1/9-19 h for ID with resistance markers/AST), with 15 min/sample hands-on time. In comparison, Pheno TATs were around 8–10 h (1.5/7 h for ID/AST) with 2 min/sample hands-on time, maintains a clinically relevant fast report of antibiotic minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and allows for less TAT and hands-on time. Conclusion: In conclusion, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study conducted as such in Asia; all studied approaches achieved satisfactory performance, factors such as TAT, panel of antibiotics choices and hands-on time should be considered for the selection of appropriate rapid ID and AST of PBC methods in different laboratory settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid tests (RTs) might have several advantages over standard laboratory procedures, increasing access to diagnosis, especially among vulnerable populations and/or those living in remote areas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of RTs for the detection of hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) in samples from different populations/settings.Methods: Three RTs for HBsAg detection (Vikia® HBsAg, HBsAg Teste Rápido®, and Imuno-Rápido HBsAg®) and different biological specimens (serum, whole blood, and saliva) were evaluated. Analyses comprised a reference panel and samples from field studies targeting suspected cases of hepatitis B virus (HBV) (G I), individuals living in deprived areas (G II), and highly vulnerable individuals (G III). Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was defined as the gold standard in this study. Reproducibility, repeatability, and cross-reactivity with other infectious agents such as dengue, immunodeficiency (HIV), and hepatitis C (HCV) viruses and T. pallidum were determined.Results: For the reference panel, the sensitivity and specificity of all HBsAg RTs were higher than 93.00 %. G I presented the highest kappa values for all rapid assays using sera samples. When using serum, the sensitivity values were higher than 93.40 for G I, 60.00 % for G II and 66.77 % for G III, and the specificity values were higher than 99.50 for GI, 97.20 for G II and 99.10 % for G III for all tests. For whole blood samples & the Vikia® HBsAg assay, the best performance was achieved for GIII (k = 79.75 %). For saliva samples, the Imuno-Rápido HBsAg® assay showed the highest concordance values with EIA for G I (40.68 %) and G II (32.20 %). The reproducibility and repeatability of all RTs for serum and saliva were excellent, and the concordance between HBsAg EIAs and RTs using samples reactive with other infectious agents varied from 70.10 % to 100.00 %.Conclusions: The overall performance of RTs for HBsAg in serum was high/moderately high for all groups, thereby promoting increased access to HBV diagnosis among vulnerable populations as well as samples from individuals in emergency settings or remote areas. Rapid tests for HBsAg using whole blood could be used in prevalence studies, though these assays should not be used for saliva samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi, the causative agent of typhoid, is endemic in most parts of the world especially in Africa. Reliable and rapid diagnosis of the bacterium is therefore critical for confirmation of all suspected typhoid cases. In many parts of Zimbabwe, laboratory capacity to isolate the microorganism by culture method as a way of diagnosis has limitations. In this study, two rapid serological kits, TUBEX-TF and OnSite Typhoid IgG/IgM Combo, were evaluated for possible expeditious diagnosis of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi infection during a typhoid outbreak in Zimbabwe. Methods: Blood was collected from patients with clinical signs and symptoms of typhoid in Harare, Zimbabwe during an outbreak. The standard culture method was used to diagnose the disease. Two rapid kits, the TUBEX-TF and OnSite Typhoid IgG/IgM Combo, were also used in parallel to diagnose typhoid according to manufacturers' instructions. The diagnostic accuracy of the two kits was evaluated using the culture method as the gold standard. Results: From all the cases diagnosed by the blood culture (n = 136), we enrolled 131 patients for the TUBEX-TF and 136 for the OnSite Typhoid IgG/IgM Combo tests. With the culture method as a reference standard, we found that TUBEX-TF test was 100% sensitive and 94.12% specific, with 63.16% positive and 100% negative predictive values (NPVs) and the OnSite Typhoid IgG/IgM Combo test was 100% sensitive and 94.35% specific, with 63.16% positive and 100% NPVs. Conclusion: Our results indicated that TUBEX-TF and OnSite Typhoid IgG/IgM Combo rapid tests were useful tools for the rapid diagnosis of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi infection during typhoid outbreaks in Zimbabwe. The tests performed very well in laboratory evaluations of blood culture-confirmed typhoid cases in Harare, Zimbabwe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]