Search

Background The purpose of this study is to develop a theory-driven understanding of the barriers and facilitators underpinning physicians’ attitudes and capabilities to implementing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care (POC) testing into primary care practices. Methods We used a secondary qualitative analysis approach to re-analyse data from a qualitative, interview study of 22 primary care physicians from 21 primary care practices across three regions in England. We followed the three-step method based on the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify the barriers to implementing SARS-CoV-2 POC testing and identified strategies to address these challenges. Results Several factors underpinned primary care physicians’ attitudes and capabilities to implement SARS-CoV-2 POC testing into practice. First, limited knowledge of the SARS-CoV-2 POC testing landscape and a demanding workload affected physicians’ willingness to use the tests. Second, there was scepticism about the insufficient evidence pertaining to the clinical efficacy and utility of POC tests, which affected physicians’ confidence in the accuracy of tests. Third, physicians would adopt POC tests if they were prescribed and recommended by authorities. Fourth, physicians required professional education and training to increase their confidence in using POC tests but also suggested that healthcare assistants should administer the tests. Fifth, physicians expressed concerns about their limited workload capacity and that extra resources are needed to accommodate any anticipated changes. Sixth, information sharing across practices shaped perceptions of POC tests and the quality of information influenced physician perceptions. Seventh, financial incentives could motivate physicians and were also needed to cover the associated costs of testing. Eighth, physicians were worried that society will view primary care as an alternative to community testing centres, which would change perceptions around their professional identity. Ninth, physicians’ perception of assurance/risk influenced their willingness to use POC testing if it could help identify infectious individuals, but they were also concerned about the risk of occupational exposure and potentially losing staff members who would need to self-isolate. Conclusions Improving primary care physicians’ knowledgebase of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests, introducing policies to embed testing into practice, and providing resources to meet the anticipated demands of testing are critical to implementing testing into practice.

BackgroundLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in males aged ≥40 years and have a considerable impact on quality of life. Management can be complex, and although most LUTS could be treated effectively in primary care, referrals to urology outpatients are increasing.AimTo explore GPs’ experiences of managing LUTS together with patients’ experiences of and preferences for treatment in primary care.Design and settingTelephone interviews were conducted with GPs and male patients presenting to primary care with bothersome LUTS.MethodEleven GPs and 25 male patients were purposively sampled from 20 GP practices in three UK regions: Newcastle upon Tyne, Bristol, and South Wales. Interviews were conducted between May 2018 and January 2019, and were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsDifficulty establishing causes and differentiating between prostate and bladder symptoms were key challenges to the diagnosis of LUTS in primary care, often making treatment a process of trial and error. Pharmacological treatments were commonly ineffective and often caused side effects. Despite this, patients were generally satisfied with GP consultations and expressed a preference for treatment in primary care.ConclusionManaging LUTS in primary care is a more accessible option for patients. Given the challenges of LUTS diagnosis, an effective diagnostic tool for use by GPs would be beneficial. Ensuring bothersome LUTS are not dismissed as a normal part of ageing is essential in improving patients’ quality of life. Greater exploration of the role of non-pharmacological treatments is needed.

IntroductionReliable rapid testing on COVID-19 is needed in care homes to reduce the risk of outbreaks and enable timely care. Point-of-care testing (POCT) in care homes could provide rapid actionable results. This study aimed to examine the usability and test performance of point of care polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for COVID-19 in care homes.MethodsPoint-of-care PCR for detection of SARS-COV2 was evaluated in a purposeful sample of four UK care homes. Test agreement with laboratory real-time PCR and usability and use errors were assessed.ResultsPoint of care and laboratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests were performed on 278 participants. The point of care and laboratory tests returned uncertain results or errors for 17 and 5 specimens respectively. Agreement analysis was conducted on 256 specimens. 175 were from staff: 162 asymptomatic; 13 symptomatic. 69 were from residents: 59 asymptomatic; 10 symptomatic. Asymptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%-99.6%) positive agreement and 98.7% negative agreement (95% CI: 96.2%-99.7%), with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932 – 0.999). Symptomatic specimens showed 100% (95% CI: 2.5%-100%) positive agreement and 100% negative agreement (95% CI: 85.8%-100%), with overall PABAK of 1. No usability-related hazards emerged from this exploratory study.ConclusionApplications of point-of-care PCR testing in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards. Agreement between POCT and laboratory PCR was good. Further diagnostic accuracy evaluations and in-service evaluation studies should be conducted, if the test is to be implemented more widely, to build greater certainty on this initial exploratory analysis.Key pointsPoint of care tests (POCT) in care homes are feasible and could increase testing capacity for the control of COVID-19 infection.The test of agreement between POCT and laboratory PCR for care home residents and the staff was good.Adoption of POCT in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards in place.Repetitive errors and test malfunctioning can be mitigated with bespoke training for care home staff.Integrated care pathways should be investigated to test the high variability of the context of use.

Introduction Care home residents are at high risk of dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Regular testing, producing rapid and reliable results is important in this population because infections spread quickly, and presentations are often atypical or asymptomatic. This study evaluated current testing pathways in care homes to explore the role of point-of-care tests (POCTs). Methods A total of 10 staff from eight care homes, purposively sampled to reflect care organisational attributes that influence outbreak severity, underwent a semi-structured remote videoconference interview. Transcripts were analysed using process mapping tools and framework analysis focussing on perceptions about, gaps within and needs arising from current pathways. Results Four main steps were identified in testing: infection prevention, preparatory steps, swabbing procedure and management of residents. Infection prevention was particularly challenging for mobile residents with cognitive impairment. Swabbing and preparatory steps were resource-intensive, requiring additional staff resource. Swabbing required flexibility and staff who were familiar to the resident. Frequent approaches to residents were needed to ensure they would participate at a suitable time. After-test management varied between sites. Several homes reported deviating from government guidance to take more cautious approaches, which they perceived to be more robust. Conclusion Swab-based testing is organisationally complex and resource-intensive in care homes. It needs to be flexible to meet the needs of residents and provide care homes with rapid information to support care decisions. POCT could help address gaps but the complexity of the setting means that each technology must be evaluated in context before widespread adoption in care homes.

BackgroundTests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity.MethodsWe conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv, and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS-2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites.ResultsOf 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from − 6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 and 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post-symptom onset.ConclusionsRT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond 10 days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias, so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.

Respiratory syncytial virus is a common cause of bronchiolitis. Historically, point-of-care tests have involved antigen detection technology with limited sensitivity. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and model the economic impact of the Roche cobas® Liat® point-of-care influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus test. The “DEC-RSV” study was a multi-centre, prospective, observational study in children under 2 years presenting with viral respiratory symptoms. A nasopharyngeal aspirate sample was tested using the point-of-care test and standard laboratory-based procedures. The primary outcome was accuracy of respiratory syncytial virus detection. The cost implications of adopting a point-of-care test were modelled using study data. A total of 186 participants were recruited, with both tests performed on 177 samples. The point-of-care test was invalid for 16 samples (diagnostic yield 91%) leaving 161 available for primary analysis. After resolving discrepancies, the cobas® Liat® respiratory syncytial virus test had 100.00% (95% CI 96.07%–100.00%) sensitivity and 98.53% (95% CI 92.08%–99.96%) specificity. Median time to result was 0.6 h (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5–1) for point-of-care testing and 28.9 h (IQR 26.3–48.1) for standard laboratory testing. Estimated non-diagnostic cost savings for 1000 patients, based on isolation decision-making on point-of-care test result, were £57 010, which would increase to £94 847 when cohort nursing is used. In young children the cobas® Liat® point-of-care respiratory syncytial virus test has high diagnostic accuracy using nasopharyngeal aspirates (currently an off-licence sample type). Time to result is clinically important and was favourable compared to laboratory-based testing. The potential exists for cost savings when adopting the point-of-care test., This prospective evaluation of the cobas Liat point-of-care RSV test in children demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy using nasopharyngeal aspirate samples, with favourable time to result compared to usual laboratory-based testing procedures https://bit.ly/2yKKmUB

IntroductionSuccessful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents findings from a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes.MethodsA mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was carried out to explore biosafety issues.ResultsThe agreement analysis was carried out on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI: 1.3%-98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%-98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857-0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%-99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%-100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549-1).The dry run showed four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation after modification showed no further evidence of contamination.ConclusionCareful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption.

Background Diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in an intensive care unit (ICU) is a complex process. Our aim was to collect, evaluate and represent the information relating to current clinical practice for the diagnosis of VAP in UK NHS ICUs, and to explore the potential value and role of a novel diagnostic for VAP, which uses optical molecular alveoscopy to visualise the alveolar space. Methods Qualitative study performing semi-structured interviews with clinical experts. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. A flow diagram of the VAP patient pathway was elicited and validated with the expert interviewees. Fourteen clinicians were interviewed from a range of UK NHS hospitals: 12 ICU consultants, 1 professor of respiratory medicine and 1 professor of critical care. Results Five themes were identified, relating to [1] current practice for the diagnosis of VAP, [2] current clinical need in VAP diagnostics, [3] the potential value and role of the technology, [4] the barriers to adoption and [5] the evidence requirements for the technology, to help facilitate a successful adoption. These themes indicated that diagnosis of VAP is extremely difficult, as is the decision to stop antibiotic treatment. The analysis revealed that there is a clinical need for a diagnostic that provides an accurate and timely diagnosis of the causative pathogen, without the long delays associated with return of culture results, and which is not dangerous to the patient. It was determined that the technology would satisfy important aspects of this clinical need for diagnosing VAP (and pneumonia, more generally), but would require further evidence on safety and efficacy in the patient population to facilitate adoption. Conclusions Care pathway analysis performed in this study was deemed accurate and representative of current practice for diagnosing VAP in a UK ICU as determined by relevant clinical experts, and explored the value and role of a novel diagnostic, which uses optical technology, and could streamline the diagnostic pathway for VAP and other pneumonias.

Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.This practice review is written by members of the UK’s COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.

BackgroundVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is an important diagnosis in critical care. VAP research is complicated by the lack of agreed diagnostic criteria and reference standard test criteria. Our aim was to review which reference standard tests are used to evaluate novel index tests for suspected VAP.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search using electronic databases and hand reference checks. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, and web of science were searched from 2008 until November 2018. All terms related to VAP diagnostics in the intensive treatment unit were used to conduct the search. We adopted a checklist from the critical appraisal skills programme checklist for diagnostic studies to assess the quality of the included studies.ResultsWe identified 2441 records, of which 178 were selected for full-text review. Following methodological examination and quality assessment, 44 studies were included in narrative data synthesis. Thirty-two (72.7%) studies utilised a sole microbiological reference standard; the remaining 12 studies utilised a composite reference standard, nine of which included a mandatory microbiological criterion. Histopathological criteria were optional in four studies but mandatory in none.ConclusionsNearly all reference standards for VAP used in diagnostic test research required some microbiological confirmation of infection, with BAL culture being the most common reference standard used.

Objectives The second wave of the coronavirus pandemic is now established, occurring at a time of winter pressure on acute care in the NHS. This is likely to be more challenging then the first wave for the diagnosis of COVID-19 because of the similar symptomology with other respiratory conditions highly prevalent in winter. This study sought to understand the care pathways in place in UK NHS hospitals during the first wave (March–July 2020) for identification of patients with COVID-19 and to learn lessons to inform optimal testing strategies within the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR). Design, setting & participants Sixteen hospital-based clinicians from 12 UK NHS Trusts covering 10 different specialties were interviewed following a semi-structured topic guide. Data were coded soon after the interviews and analysed thematically. Results We developed a diagrammatic, high-level visualisation of the care pathway describing the main clinical decisions associated with the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected COVID-19. COVID-19 testing influenced infection control considerations more so than treatment decisions. Two main features of service provision influenced the patient management significantly: access to rapid laboratory testing and the number of single occupancy rooms. If time to return of result was greater than 24 h, patients with a presumptive diagnosis would often be cohorted based on clinical suspicion alone. Undetected COVID-19 during this time could therefore lead to an increased risk of viral transmission. Conclusions During the winter months, priority for provision of rapid testing at admission should be given to hospitals with limited access to laboratory services and single room availability. Access to rapid testing is essential for urgent decisions related to emergency surgery, maternity services and organ transplant. The pathway and prioritization of need will inform the economic modelling, clinical evaluations, and implementation of new clinical tests in UK.

Background Staquet et al. and Brenner both developed correction methods to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of a binary-response index test when the reference standard is imperfect and its sensitivity and specificity are known. However, to our knowledge, no study has compared the statistical properties of these methods, despite their long application in diagnostic accuracy studies. Aim To compare the correction methods developed by Staquet et al. and Brenner. Methods Simulations techniques were employed to compare the methods under assumptions that the new test and the reference standard are conditionally independent or dependent given the true disease status of an individual. Three clinical datasets were analysed to understand the impact of using each method to inform clinical decision-making. Results Under the assumption of conditional independence, the Staquet et al. correction method outperforms the Brenner correction method irrespective of the prevalence of disease and whether the performance of the reference standard is better or worse than the index test. However, when the prevalence of the disease is high (> 0.9) or low ( Conclusion When the new test and the imperfect reference standard are conditionally independent, and the sensitivity and specificity of the imperfect reference standard are known, the Staquet et al. correction method outperforms the Brenner method. However, where the prevalence of the target condition is very high or low or the two tests are conditionally dependent, other statistical methods such as latent class approaches should be considered.

No routine laboratory biomarkers perform well enough in diagnosing COVID-19 in isolation for them to be used as a standalone diagnostic test or to help clinicians prioritize patients for treatment. Instead, other diagnostic tests are needed. The aim of this work was to statistically summarise routine laboratory biomarker measurements in COVID-19-positive and -negative patients to inform future work. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed. The search included names of commonly used, routine laboratory tests in the UK NHS, and focused on research papers reporting laboratory results of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. A random effects meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference between COVID-19-positive and -negative groups was conducted for each biomarker. When comparing reported laboratory biomarker results, we identified decreased white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, eosinophil, and platelet counts; while lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were elevated in COVID-19-positive compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Differences were identified across a number of routine laboratory biomarkers between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Further research is required to identify whether routine laboratory biomarkers can be used in the development of a clinical scoring system to aid with triage of patients.

Additional file 2.

Additional file 4.

The development of a new diagnostic test ideally follows a sequence of stages which, amongst other aims, evaluate technical performance. This includes an analytical validity study, a diagnostic accuracy study and an interventional clinical utility study. Current approaches to the design and analysis of the diagnostic accuracy study can suffer from prohibitively large sample sizes and interval estimates with undesirable properties. In this paper, we propose a novel Bayesian approach which takes advantage of information available from the analytical validity stage. We utilise assurance to calculate the required sample size based on the target width of a posterior probability interval and can choose to use or disregard the data from the analytical validity study when subsequently inferring measures of test accuracy. Sensitivity analyses are performed to assess the robustness of the proposed sample size to the choice of prior, and prior-data conflict is evaluated by comparing the data to the prior predictive distributions. We illustrate the proposed approach using a motivating real-life application involving a diagnostic test for ventilator associated pneumonia. Finally, we compare the properties of the proposed approach against commonly used alternatives. The results show that by making better use of existing data from earlier studies, the assurance-based approach can not only reduce the required sample size when compared to alternatives, but can also produce more reliable sample sizes for diagnostic accuracy studies., Comment: Revision: submitted to Statistics in Medicine

Additional file 3.

Objectives To validate a nurse-led process using electronic health records to identify those at risk of Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) for genetic diagnosis in primary care. Design Those at risk of FH were identified using searches developed and refined locally and implemented in primary care by a trained nurse; they were invited for further assessment and genetic testing if indicated. Clinical cohort study. Setting Nine GP practises in North East England. Participants Individuals registered on a primary care record. Interventions Those with phenotype indicative of FH were counselled and consented for genetic testing. Family members at risk of FH were identified and invited for cascade testing. Main outcome measures Number with FH identified by genetic testing and family members appropriate for cascade testing. Results In total 94,444 patient records were screened (expected prevalence of FH (1 in 250); 377). Of 176 records which already had a diagnostic for FH, 15 had been genetically confirmed and one was undergoing DNA testing. A further 572 (0.61%) were identified as high risk of FH. After desktop screening 113 (15%) were invited for further assessment. Of these, 73 individuals attended the primary care clinic (64%) of whom 61 (54%) underwent proband genetic testing. Pathogenic variants were detected in 22 cases (36%) and variants of unknown significance in a further 4 cases; a total of 26 probands (43%) were therefore referred for family cascade testing. Conclusions An optimised FH identification pathway, based on the NICE CG71 recommendations for systematic searching of primary care electronic health records, can be deployed successfully in primary care settings.

IntroductionCare home residents are at high risk of dying from COVID-19. Regular testing producing rapid and reliable results is important in this population because infections spread quickly and presentations are often atypical or asymptomatic. This study evaluated current testing pathways in care homes to explore the role of point-of-care tests (POCTs).MethodsTen staff from eight care homes, purposively sampled to reflect care organisational attributes that influence outbreak severity, underwent a semi-structured remote videoconference interview. Transcripts were analysed using process mapping tools and framework analysis focussing on perceptions about, gaps within, and needs arising from, current pathways.ResultsFour main steps were identified in testing: infection prevention, preparatory steps, swabbing procedure, and management of residents. Infection prevention was particularly challenging for mobile residents with cognitive impairment. Swabbing and preparatory steps were resource-intensive, requiring additional staff resource. Swabbing required flexibility and staff who were familiar to the resident. Frequent approaches to residents were needed to ensure they would participate at a suitable time. After-test management varied between sites. Several homes reported deviating from government guidance to take more cautious approaches, which they perceived to be more robust.ConclusionSwab-based testing is organisationally complex and resource-intensive in care homes. It needs to be flexible to meet the needs of residents and provide care homes with rapid information to support care decisions. POCT could help address gaps but the complexity of the setting means that each technology must be evaluated in context before widespread adoption in care homes.Key-pointsTesting for COVID-19 in care homes is complex and requires reconfiguration of staffing and environment.Isolation and testing procedures are challenged when providing person-centred care to people with dementia.Point-of-care testing results could give care homes greater flexibility to test in person-centred ways.There was evidence that care home staff interpret testing guidance, rather than follow it verbatim.Each POCT must be evaluated in the context of care homes to understand its effect on care home processes.

BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a commercial point-of-care test, the FebriDx lateral flow device (LFD), in adult patients with suspected COVID-19. The FebriDx LFD is designed to distinguish between viral and bacterial respiratory infection.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar, LitCovid, ClinicalTrials.gov and preprint servers on the 13th of January 2021 to identify studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx (myxovirus resistance protein A component) versus real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 in adult patients suspected of COVID-19. IPD were sought from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Studies were screened for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate linear mixed model was fitted to the data to obtain a pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of the model was constructed. A sub-group analysis was performed by meta-regression using the same modelling approach to compare pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity between patients with a symptom duration of 0 to 7 days and >7 days, and patients aged between 16 to 73 years and >73 years.ResultsTen studies were screened, and three studies with a total of 1481 patients receiving hospital care were included. FebriDx produced an estimated pooled sensitivity of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.855-0.946) and specificity of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.802-0.915) compared to RT-PCR. There were no significant differences between the sub-groups of 0 to 7 days and >7 days in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.473) or specificity (p = 0.853). There were also no significant differences between the sub-groups of 16 to 73 years of age and >73 years of age in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.946) or specificity (p = 0.486).ConclusionsBased on the results of three studies, the FebriDx LFD had high diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 in a hospital setting, however, the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies included, risk of bias, and inconsistent reference standards. Further research is required to confirm these findings, and determine how FebriDx would perform in different healthcare settings and patient populations.Trial registrationThis study was conducted at pace as part of the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR) national test evaluation programme (https://www.condor-platform.org), and as a result, no protocol was developed, and the study was not registered.Lay summaryTests to diagnose COVID-19 are crucial to help control the spread of the disease and to guide treatment. Over the last few months, tests have been developed to diagnose COVID-19 either by detecting the presence of the virus or by detecting specific markers linked to the virus being active in the body. These tests use complex machines in laboratories accepting samples from large geographical areas. Sometimes it takes days for test results to come back. So, to reduce the wait for results, new portable tests are being developed. These ‘point-of-care (POC)’ tests are designed to work close to where patients require assessment and care such as hospital emergency departments, GP surgeries or care homes. For these new POC tests to be useful, they should ideally be as good as standard laboratory tests.In this study we looked at published research into a new test called FebriDx. FebriDx is a POC test that detects the body’s response to infection, and is claimed to be able to detect the presence of any viral infection, including infections due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19, as well as bacterial infections which can have similar symptoms. The FebriDx result was compared with standard laboratory tests for COVID-19 performed on the same patient’s throat and nose swab sample. We were able to analyse data from three studies with a total of 1481 adult patients who were receiving hospital care with symptoms of COVID-19 during the UK pandemic. Approximately one fifth of the patients were diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus using standard laboratory tests for COVID-19.Our analysis demonstrated that FebriDx correctly identified 91 out of 100 patients who had COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. FebriDx also correctly identified 87 out of 100 patients who did not have COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. These results have important implications for how these tests could be used. As there were slightly fewer FebriDx false results when the results of the standard laboratory test were positive (9 out of 100) than when the results of the standard laboratory test were negative (13 out of 100), we can have slightly more confidence in a positive test result using FebriDx than a negative FebriDx result.Overall, we have shown that the FebriDx POC test performed well during the UK COVID-19 pandemic when compared with laboratory tests, especially when COVID-19 was indicated. For the future, this means that the FebriDx POC test might be helpful in making a quick clinical decision on whether to isolate a patient with COVID-19-like symptoms arriving in a busy emergency department. However, our results indicate it would not completely replace the need to conduct a laboratory test in certain cases to confirm COVID-19.There are limitations to our findings. For example, we do not know if FebriDx will work in a similar way with patients in different settings such as in the community or care homes. Similarly, we do not know whether other viral and bacterial infections which cause similar COVID-19 symptoms, and are more common in the autumn and winter months, could influence the FebriDx test accuracy. Our findings are also only based on three studies.

STRUCTURED SUMMARYBackgroundTests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA), using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity.MethodsWe conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS- 2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites.FindingsOf 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from -6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 to 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post- symptom onset.InterpretationRT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond ten days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.PANEL: RESEARCH IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyThere are numerous reports of negative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results in participants with known SARS-CoV-2 infection, and increasing awareness that the ability of RT-PCR tests to detect virus depends on the timing of sample retrieval and anatomical sampling site.Individual studies suggest that positive test results from RT-PCR with nasopharyngeal sampling declines within a week of symptoms and that a positive test later in the disease course is more likely from sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or stool, but data are inconsistent.Added value of this studyWe searched 5078 titles and abstracts for longitudinal studies reporting individual participant data (IPD) for RT-PCR for participants with COVID-19 linked to either time since symptom onset or time since hospitalisation. Search included SARS-CoV-2 and RT-PCR keywords and MeSH terms. Each included study was subject to careful assessment of risk of bias. This IPD systematic review (SR) addresses RT-PCR test detection rates at different times since symptom onset and hospitalisation for different sampling sites, and summarises the duration of detectable virus. To our knowledge, this is the first rapid SR addressing this topic. We identified 32 studies available as published articles or pre-prints between January 1stand April 24th2020, including participants sampled at 11 different sampling sites and some participants sampled at more than one site. At earlier time points, nasopharyngeal sampling had the highest virus detection, but the duration of shedding was shorter compared to lower respiratory tract sampling. At 10 to 14 days post-symptom onset, the percentage of positive nasopharyngeal test results was 54% compared to 89% at day 0 to 4. Presence and duration of faecal detection varied by participant, and in nearly half duration was shorter than respiratory sample detection. Virus detection varies for participants and can continue to be detected up to 46 days post-symptom onset or hospitalisation. The included studies were open to substantial risk of bias, so the detection rates are probably overestimates. There was also poor reporting of sampling methods and sparse data on sampling methods that are becoming more widely implemented, such as self-sampling and short nasal swab sampling (anterior nares/mid turbinate).Implications of all the available evidenceResults from this IPD SR of SARS-CoV-2 testing at different time points and using different anatomical sample sites are important to inform strategies of testing. For prevention of ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, samples for RT-PCR testing need to be taken as soon as possible post-symptom onset, as we confirm that RT-PCR misses more people with infection if sampling is delayed. The percentage of positive RT-PCR tests is also highly dependent on the anatomical site sampled in infected people. Sampling at more than one anatomical site may be advisable as there is variation between individuals in the sites that are infected, as well as the timing of SARS-CoV-2 virus detection at an anatomical site. Testing ten days after symptom onset will lead to a higher frequency of negative tests, particularly if using only upper respiratory tract sampling. However, our estimates may considerably understate the frequency of negative RT-PCR results in people with SARS-CoV- 2 infection. Further investment in this IPD approach is recommended as the amount data available was small given the scale of the pandemic and the importance of the question. More studies, learning from our observations about risk of bias and strengths of example studies (Box 1, Box 2) are urgently needed to inform the optimal sampling strategy by including self-collected samples such as saliva and short nasal swabs. Better reporting of anatomical sampling sites with a detailed methodology on sample collection is also urgently needed.

IntroductionLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is a bothersome condition affecting older men which can lead to poor quality of life. General practitioners (GPs) currently have no easily available assessment tools to help effectively diagnose causes of LUTS and aid discussion of treatment with patients. Men are frequently referred to urology specialists who often recommend treatments that could have been initiated in primary care. GP access to simple, accurate tests and clinician decision tools are needed to facilitate accurate and effective patient management of LUTS in primary care.Methods and analysisPRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms (PriMUS) is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study based in primary care. The study will determine which of a number of index tests used in combination best predict three urodynamic observations in men who present to their GP with LUTS. These are detrusor overactivity, bladder outlet obstruction and/or detrusor underactivity. Two cohorts of participants, one for development of the prototype diagnostic tool and other for validation, will undergo a series of simple index tests and the invasive reference standard (invasive urodynamics). We will develop and validate three diagnostic prediction models based on each condition and then combine them with management recommendations to form a clinical decision support tool.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and results will be of interest to professional and patient stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN10327305.

Additional file 1. Including additional tables and figures: search details, QUADAS-2 adaption, anatomical sample size details, risk of bias by article, percentage positive and negative RT-PCR results by sample for days since symptom onset and days since hospitalisation, time to undetectable virus in faecal and respiratory tract.

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1β and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia.Methods: VAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 104 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425.Findings: Between Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes.Interpretation: Antibiotic use remains high in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antibiotic stewardship was not improved by a rapid, highly sensitive rule-out test. Prescribing culture, rather than poor test performance, might explain this absence of effect.Funding: UK Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust.

The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the ROC curve are widely used in discovery to compare the performance of diagnostic and prognostic assays. The ROC curve has the advantage that it is independent of disease prevalence. However, in this note, we remind scientists and clinicians that the performance of an assay upon translation to the clinic is critically dependent upon that very same prevalence. Without an understanding of prevalence in the test population, even robust bioassays with excellent ROC characteristics may perform poorly in the clinic. While the exact prevalence in the target population is not always known, simple plots of candidate assay performance as a function of prevalence rate give a better understanding of the likely real-world performance and a greater understanding of the likely impact of variation in that prevalence on translation to the clinic.

ObjectiveTo assess the value added to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) by mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) blood level in predicting deterioration in mild to moderately ill people.DesignProspective observational study.SettingThe Medical Admissions Suite of the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle.Participants300 adults with NEWS between 2 and 5 on admission. Exclusion criteria included receiving palliative care, or admitted for social reasons or self-harming. Patients were enrolled between September and December 2015, and followed up for 30 days after discharge.Outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who, within 72 hours, had anacuity increase, defined as any combination of an increase of at least 2 in the NEWS; transfer to a higher-dependency bed or monitored area; death; or for those discharged from hospital, readmission for medical reasons.ResultsNEWS and MR-proADM together predictedacuity increasemore accurately than NEWS alone, increasing the area under the curve (AUC) to 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69) from 0.55 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.62). When the confounding effects of presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure and interaction with MR-proADM were included, the prognostic accuracy further increased the AUC to 0.69 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.76).ConclusionsMR-proADM is potentially a clinically useful biomarker for deterioration in patients admitted to hospital with a mild to moderately severe acute illness, that is, with NEWS between 2 and 5. As a growing number of National Health Service hospitals are routinely recording the NEWS on their clinical information systems, further research should assess the practicality and use of developing a decision aid based on admission NEWS, MR-proADM level, and possibly other clinical data and other biomarkers that could further improve prognostic accuracy.

There is an urgent requirement to identify which clinical settings are in most need of COVID-19 tests and the priority role(s) for tests in these settings to accelerate the development of tests fit for purpose in health and social care across the UK. This study sought to identify and prioritize unmet clinical needs for COVID-19 tests across different settings within the UK health and social care sector via an online survey of health and social care professionals and policymakers. Four hundred and forty-seven responses were received between 22nd May and 15th June 2020. Hospitals and care homes were recognized as the settings with the greatest unmet clinical need for COVID-19 diagnostics, despite reporting more access to laboratory molecular testing than other settings. Hospital staff identified a need for diagnostic tests for symptomatic workers and patients. In contrast, care home staff expressed an urgency for screening at the front door to protect high-risk residents and limit transmission. The length of time to test result was considered a widespread problem with current testing across all settings. Rapid tests for staff were regarded as an area of need across general practice and dental settings alongside tests to limit antibiotics use.

Development of a new diagnostic is ideally driven by an understanding of the clinical need that the test addresses and the optimal role the test will have within a care pathway. This survey aimed to understand the clinical need for new sepsis diagnostics and to identify specific clinical scenarios that could be improved by testing. An electronic, cross-sectional survey was circulated to UK National Health Service (NHS) doctors and nurses who care for patients with suspected sepsis in hospitals. Two hundred and sixty-five participants completed the survey, representing 64 NHS Trusts in England. Sixty-seven percent of respondents suggested that the major cause of delay was during the initial identification of sepsis and the subsequent recognition of patients who were deteriorating. Existing blood tests did not enhance the confidence of consultants making their diagnoses. Those surveyed identified a role for a near-patient test to &ldquo, rule out&rdquo, suspected sepsis and, thereby, stop or postpone use of antibiotics. Current diagnostic tests are slow, non-specific, and do not reliably identify patients with a high suspicion of sepsis. As a result, they have a limited use in patient management and antibiotic stewardship. Future development of sepsis diagnostics should focus on overcoming these limitations.

Background Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), bacteria which are resistant to the carbapenem class of antibiotics, present an urgent public health risk. The objective of this study was to assess the potential costs and consequences of implementing a testing strategy involving a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test for CPE amongst high risk patients upon admission to UK hospitals, to replace the current culture-based testing strategy. Methods A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the expected medical care costs associated with a PCR testing strategy for CPE compared with the current culture testing strategy, and to consider the consequences, in terms of the diagnostic accuracy and associated cost implications, of each approach. The modelled population were patients admitted to hospital at high risk of colonisation with CPE, with model pathways for current practice based on those described in the Public Health England (PHE) toolkit for CPE testing. Costs were estimated from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with outcomes presented in terms of percentage of samples identified as true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative following each method of testing. Results Results indicated that the PCR testing strategy led to an estimated cost saving of £462 per patient for a 5-day hospital stay. For all sensitivity analyses conducted, PCR testing resulted in an expected cost saving. Potential cost savings approached £850 per patient for the sensitivity analysis assuming a 15-day hospital stay, indicating that PCR testing results in greater cost savings as length of stay increases. Fewer false positive, and more true negative, cases were identified with the PCR testing strategy in all analyses conducted. Conclusions This economic analysis gives an insight into the potential cost savings that could be made by the UK NHS through the introduction of a PCR-based diagnostic testing strategy to replace current recommended culture-based methods for the detection of CPE. Savings are due primarily to a faster time to result with PCR, meaning that CPE-free patients are not isolated unnecessarily. Therefore, a PCR-based diagnostic may aid appropriate use of isolation resource.

Reason for the study To standardize the use of flow cytometry for classifying hematological malignancies and make the results reliable and reproducible across laboratories, the EuroFlow™ Consortium published a comprehensive specification of antibody-fluorochrome conjugates, standard protocols, and algorithms for analysis. The BD OneFlow™ system builds on, and further standardizes, the EuroFlow protocols. We aimed to assess the effects on safety, efficiency, and costs for laboratories of adopting the BD OneFlow reagent tubes (LST and B-CLPD T1) for diagnosing chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Methods We compared in-house laboratory processes and results with those using the LST and B-CLPD T1 reagent tubes with, and without, blood film morphology. Outcome measures included concordance in classification results, and efficiency within the laboratory, that is, resource usage, staff time, unwanted events, and cost-consequences. Results There was 100% concordance between the classifications made with in-house flow cytometry and those with the BD OneFlow reagent tubes. Using BD OneFlow tubes required 13 hours less staff time per month (i.e. for 100 samples) than the in-house process. Sensitivity analyses explored the effects of uncertainties in the price of the BD OneFlow tubes and the prevalence of CLL and identified the thresholds at which laboratories might expect cost-savings from adopting the BD OneFlow system. Laboratory and clinical staff considered the BD OneFlow system to be safe and effective. Conclusions Laboratories adopting the BD OneFlow system for classifying patients with suspected CLL can expect safe, efficient processes that can be cost saving if the discount on the list price, and prevalence of CLL (which will both vary between sites and countries), is within the thresholds suggested by the health economics sensitivity analysis. © 2019 International Clinical Cytometry Society.

BACKGROUNDFamilial dysbetalipoproteinemia is associated with the accumulation of remnant lipoproteins and premature cardiovascular disease. Identification of dysbetalipoproteinemia is important because family members may be affected. Diagnostic testing involves demonstration of β-lipoprotein in the VLDL fraction or characterization of apo E3. These investigations are complex and relatively expensive. The ratios of apo B to total cholesterol and triglycerides have been proposed as screening tests. However, the ratio of non-HDL cholesterol to apo B (NHDLC/apoB) could offer improved performance as the confounding effect of variations in HDL cholesterol is removed.METHODSWe evaluated NHDLC/apoB as a screening test for dysbetalipoproteinemia, using β-quantification analysis as a reference standard. Data from 1637 patients referred over a 16-year period for β quantification were reviewed retrospectively. In 63 patients, diagnostic criteria for dysbetalipoproteinemia (VLDL cholesterol/triglyceride ratio ≥0.69 and presence of β-VLDL) were fulfilled, and 1574 patients had dysbetalipoproteinemia excluded.RESULTSMean NHDLC/apoB in patients with dysbetalipoproteinemia was 7.3 mmol/g (SD, 1.5 mmol/g) and with dysbetalipoproteinemia excluded was 4.0 mmol/g (SD, 0.5 mmol/g). The optimum cutoff of >4.91 mmol/g achieved a diagnostic sensitivity of 96.8% (95% CI, 89.0–99.6) and specificity of 95.0% (95% CI, 93.8–96.0). NHDLC/apoB offered improved performance compared to total cholesterol/apoB [diagnostic sensitivity 92.1% (95% CI, 82.4–97.4) and specificity 94.5% (95% CI, 93.2–95.6) with a cutoff of >6.55 mmol/g]. NHDL/apoB reference ranges were not sex-dependent, although there was a significant difference between men and women for total cholesterol/apoB.CONCLUSIONSNHDLC/apoB offers a simple first-line test for dysbetalipoproteinemia in selecting patients with mixed hyperlipidemia for more complex investigations.

Information about the performance of diagnostic tests is typically presented in the form of measures of test accuracy such as sensitivity and specificity. These measures may be difficult to translate directly into decisions about patient treatment, for which information presented in the form of probabilities of disease after a positive or a negative test result may be more useful. These probabilities depend on the prevalence of the disease, which is likely to vary between populations. This article aims to clarify the relationship between pre-test (prevalence) and post-test probabilities of disease, and presents two free, online interactive tools to illustrate this relationship. These tools allow probabilities of disease to be compared with decision thresholds above and below which different treatment decisions may be indicated. They are intended to help those involved in communicating information about diagnostic test performance and are likely to be of benefit when teaching these concepts. A substantive example is presented using C reactive protein as a diagnostic marker for bacterial infection in the older adult population. The tools may also be useful for manufacturers of clinical tests in planning product development, for authors of test evaluation studies to improve reporting and for users of test evaluations to facilitate interpretation and application of the results.

ObjectiveTo systematically review methods developed and employed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of medical test when there is a missing or no gold standard.Study design and settingsArticles that proposed or applied any methods to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of medical test(s) in the absence of gold standard were reviewed. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018089349).ResultsIdentified methods were classified into four main groups: methods employed when there is a missing gold standard; correction methods (which make adjustment for an imperfect reference standard with known diagnostic accuracy measures); methods employed to evaluate a medical test using multiple imperfect reference standards; and other methods, like agreement studies, and a mixed group of alternative study designs. Fifty-one statistical methods were identified from the review that were developed to evaluate medical test(s) when the true disease status of some participants is unverified with the gold standard. Seven correction methods were identified and four methods were identified to evaluate medical test(s) using multiple imperfect reference standards. Flow-diagrams were developed to guide the selection of appropriate methods.ConclusionVarious methods have been proposed to evaluate medical test(s) in the absence of a gold standard for some or all participants in a diagnostic accuracy study. These methods depend on the availability of the gold standard, its' application to the participants in the study and the availability of alternative reference standard(s). The clinical application of some of these methods, especially methods developed when there is missing gold standard is however limited. This may be due to the complexity of these methods and/or a disconnection between the fields of expertise of those who develop (e.g. mathematicians) and those who employ the methods (e.g. clinical researchers). This review aims to help close this gap with our classification and guidance tools.

Late-stage malignant melanoma is a cancer that is refractory to current chemotherapeutic treatments. The average survival time for patients with such a diagnosis is 6 months. In general, the vast majority of anticancer drugs operate through induction of cell cycle arrest and cell death in either the DNA synthesis (S) or mitosis (M) phase of the cell cycle. Unfortunately, the same mechanisms that melanocytes possess to protect cells from DNA damage often confer resistance to drugs that derive their toxicity from S or M phase arrest. Described herein is the synthesis of a combinatorial library of potential proapoptotic agents and the subsequent identification of a class of small molecules (triphenylmethylamides, TPMAs) that arrest the growth of melanoma cells in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. Several of these TPMAs are quite potent inducers of apoptotic death in melanoma cell lines (IC(50) approximately 0.5 muM), and importantly, some TPMAs are comparatively nontoxic to normal cells isolated from the bone marrow of healthy donors. Furthermore, the TPMAs were found to dramatically reduce the level of active nuclear factor kappa-B (NFkappaB) in the cell; NFkappaB is known to be constitutively active in melanoma, and this activity is critical for the proliferation of melanoma cells and their evasion of apoptosis. Compounds that reduce the level of NFkappaB and arrest cells in the G1 phase of the cell cycle can provide insights into the biology of melanoma and may be effective antimelanoma agents.