Assessing a chip based rapid RTPCR test for SARS CoV-2 detection (TrueNat assay): A diagnostic accuracy study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ghoshal U
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8513858 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBringing reliable and accurate tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis closer to patients is a key priority for global TB control. Molbio Diagnostics have developed the Truenat point-of-care molecular assays for detection of TB and rifampicin (RIF) resistance.MethodsWe conducted a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study at 19 primary healthcare centres and seven reference laboratories in Peru, India, Ethiopia and Papua New Guinea to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care Truenat MTB, MTB Plus and MTB-RIF Dx assays for pulmonary TB using culture and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing as the reference standard, compared with Xpert MTB/RIF or Ultra.ResultsOf 1807 enrolled participants with TB signs/symptoms, 24% were culture-positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, of which 15% were RIF-resistant. In microscopy centres, the pooled sensitivity of Truenat MTB and Truenat MTB Plus was 73% (95% CI 67-78%) and 80% (95% CI 75-84%), respectively. Among smear-negative specimens, sensitivities were 36% (95% CI 27-47%) and 47% (95% CI 37-58%), respectively. Sensitivity of Truenat MTB-RIF was 84% (95% CI 62-95%). Truenat assays showed high specificity. Head-to-head comparison in the central reference laboratories suggested that the Truenat assays have similar performance to Xpert MTB/RIF.ConclusionWe found the performance of Molbio's Truenat MTB, MTB Plus and MTB-RIF Dx assays to be comparable to that of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. Performing the Truenat tests in primary healthcare centres with very limited infrastructure was feasible. These data supported the development of a World Health Organization policy recommendation of the Molbio assays.
| S-EPMC8607906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Augurix SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG rapid immunoassay diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19.MethodsIn this unmatched 1:1 case-control study, blood samples from 46 real-time RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized cases and 45 healthy donors (negative controls) were studied. Diagnostic accuracy of the IgG RDT was assessed against both an in-house recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA), as an established reference method (primary endpoint), and the Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (secondary endpoint).ResultsCOVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (61% vs 20%; P = .0001) and older (median 66 vs 47 years old; P < .001) than controls. Whole blood IgG-RDT results showed 86% and 93% overall Kendall concordance with rIFA and IgG ELISA, respectively. IgG RDT performances were similar between plasma and whole blood. Overall, RDT sensitivity was 88% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 70-96), specificity 98% (95%CI: 90-100), PPV 97% (95%CI: 80-100) and NPV 94% (95%CI: 84-98). The IgG-RDT carried out from 0 to 6 days, 7 to 14 days and > 14 days after the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test displayed 30%, 73% and 100% positivity rates in the COVID-19 group, respectively. When considering samples taken >14 days after RT-PCR diagnosis, NPV was 100% (95%CI:90-100), and PPV was 100% (95%CI:72-100).ConclusionsThe Augurix IgG-RDT done in whole blood displays a high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in high COVID-19 prevalence settings, where its use could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.
| S-EPMC7404380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConsidering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT.Study designWe performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires.ResultsAmong 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform.ConclusionLaypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8163726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid and sensitive Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis closer to patients is a key global TB control priority. Truenat assays (MTB, MTB Plus, and MTB-RIF Dx) are new TB molecular diagnostic tools for the detection of TB and Rifampicin (RIF)-resistance from sputum samples. The diagnostic accuracy of the assays is needed prior to implementation in clinical use in Ethiopia. This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of Truenat assays; and aimed to compare the assays to the Xpert MTB/RIF assay.MethodsA prospective evaluation study was conducted among 200 presumptive TB patients in microscopy centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from May 2019 to December 2020. Culture (Solid and Liquid methods) and phenotypic (liquid method) drug susceptibility testing (DST) were used as a reference standard.ResultsOf 200 adult participants, culture confirmed TB cases were 25 (12.5%), and only one isolate was resistant to RIF by phenotypic DST. The sensitivity of Truenat MTB was 88.0% [95% CI 70.1, 95.8], while 91.7 [95% CI 74.2, 97.7] for Truenat MTB Plus at the microscopy centers. The specificity of Truenat MTB was 97.2% [95% CI 93.1, 98.9], while for Truenat MTB Plus was 97.2% [95% CI 93.0, 99.0]. The sensitivity of Truenat MTB was 90.5% while for MTB Plus, 100% compared to the Xpert MTB/RIF assay.ConclusionTruenat assays were found to have high diagnostic accuracy. The assays have the potential to be used as a point of care (POC) TB diagnostic tests.
| S-EPMC8714111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccess to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory RT-PCR testing is the current standard of care but usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe our diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care real time RT-PCR CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing.MethodsBetween April and May, 2020, we obtained two nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals in three hospitals in London and Oxford (UK). Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred health-care workers with suspected COVID-19; patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19; and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19. For the CovidNudge test, nasopharyngeal swabs were inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as sample adequacy control. Swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge platform, and with standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium for processing in a central laboratory. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care CovidNudge test with laboratory-based testing.FindingsWe obtained 386 paired samples: 280 (73%) from self-referred health-care workers, 15 (4%) from patients in the emergency department, and 91 (23%) hospital inpatient admissions. Of the 386 paired samples, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge point-of-care platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the point-of-care test compared with laboratory-based testing was 94% (95% CI 86-98) with an overall specificity of 100% (99-100). The sensitivity of the test varied by group (self-referred healthcare workers 94% [95% CI 85-98]; patients in the emergency department 100% [48-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [29-100]). Specificity was consistent between groups (self-referred health-care workers 100% [95% CI 98-100]; patients in the emergency department 100% [69-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [96-100]). Point of care testing performance was similar during a period of high background prevalence of laboratory positive tests (25% [95% 20-31] in April, 2020) and low prevalence (3% [95% 1-9] in inpatient screening). Amplification of viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, and n3) and envelope protein gene (e-gene) were most sensitive for detection of spiked SARS-CoV-2 RNA.InterpretationThe CovidNudge platform was a sensitive, specific, and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The device, which has been implemented in UK hospitals since May, 2020, could enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programmes.FundingNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, and DnaNudge.
| S-EPMC7498257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundM2 pyruvate kinase (M2PK) is an oncoprotein secreted by colorectal cancers in stools. This the first report on the accuracy of a rapid stool test in the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC).ObjectiveTo determine the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value of a rapid, point of care stool test M2 PK- the M2PK Quick.MethodsConsecutive cases of endoscopically diagnosed and histological proven CRC were recruited. Stools were collected by patients and tested with the immunochromatographic M2PK Quick Test (Schebo Biotech AC, Giessen, Germany). Controls were consecutively chosen from patients without any significant colorectal or gastrointestinal disease undergoing colonoscopy. CRC was staged according to the AJCC staging manual (7th Edition) and location of tumor defined as proximal or distal.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and overall accuracy were: 93%, 97.5%, 94.9%, 96.5% and 96.0% respectively. The positive predictive value for proximal tumors was significantly lower compared to distal tumors. No differences were seen between the different stages of the tumor.ConclusionsThe M2-PK Quick, rapid, point-of-care test is a highly accurate test in the detection of CRC. It is easy and convenient to perform and a useful diagnostic test for the detection of CRC in a clinical practice setting.
| S-EPMC4497640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe easy access to a quick diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a key point to improve the management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to contain its spread. Up to now, laboratory real-time PCR is the standard of care, but requires a fully equipped laboratory and significant infrastructure. Consequently, new diagnostic tools are required.MethodsIn the present work, the diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care rapid test "bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19" (Hyris Ltd) is evaluated by a retrospective and a prospective analysis on SARS CoV-2 samples previously assessed with an FDA "authorized for the emergency use-EUA" reference method. Descriptive statistics were used for the present study.ResultsResults obtained with the Hyris Kit are the same as that of standard laboratory-based real time PCR methods for all the analyzed samples. In addition, the Hyris Kit provides the test results in less than 2 h, a significantly shorter time compared to the reference methods, without the need of a fully equipped laboratory.ConclusionsTo conclude, the Hyris kit represents a promising tool to improve the health surveillance and to increase the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 testing.
| S-EPMC7752099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecisions to isolate patients at risk of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED) must be rapid and accurate to ensure prompt treatment and maintain patient flow whilst minimising nosocomial spread. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are too slow to achieve this, and near-patient testing is being used increasingly to facilitate triage. The ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification near-patient test which targets the RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase gene.AimTo assess the diagnostic performance of ID NOW as a COVID-19 triage tool for medical admissions from the ED of a large acute hospital.MethodsAll adult acute medical admissions from the ED between 31st March and 31st July 2021 with valid ID NOW and RT-PCR results were included. The diagnostic accuracy of ID NOW [sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)] was calculated against the laboratory reference standard. Discrepant results were explored further using cycle threshold values and clinical data.FindingsTwo percent (124/6050) of medical admissions were SARS-CoV-2 positive on RT-PCR. Compared with PCR, ID NOW had sensitivity and specificity of 83.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 75.4-88.7] and 99.5% (95% CI 99.3-99.6), respectively. PPV and NPV were 76.9% (95% CI 69.0-83.2) and 99.6% (95% CI 99.5-99.8), respectively. The median time from arrival in the ED to ID NOW result was 59 min.ConclusionID NOW provides a rapid and reliable adjunct for the safe triage of patients with COVID-19, and can work effectively when integrated into an ED triage algorithm.
| S-EPMC8863956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Despite the potential benefits, nasopharyngeal sample collection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment. Therefore, anterior nasal self-sampling is increasingly recognized as a valuable alternative. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of an Ag-RDT using a polypropylene absorbent collector for standardized self-collected anterior nasal swabs. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swabs served as a comparator. Primary endpoint was sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT in symptomatic patients with medium or high viral concentration (≥1 million RNA copies on RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2). Results Between 12 February and 22 March 2021, 388 participants were enrolled. After exclusion of 9 patients for which no PCR result could be obtained, the novel Ag-RDT was evaluated based on 379 participants, of whom 273 were symptomatic and 106 asymptomatic. In 61 samples from symptomatic patients with medium or high viral load (≥1 million RNA copies), the sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT was 96.7% (59/61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.7-99.6%) for the primary endpoint. In total, 62 positive Ag-RDT results were detected out of 70 RT-PCR positive individuals, yielding an overall sensitivity of 88.6% (95% CI: 78.7-94.9%). Specificity was 99.7% (95% CI: 98.2-100%) in 309 RT-PCR negative individuals. Conclusions Here, we present a validation of a novel Ag-RDT with a standardized sampling process for anterior nasal self-collection, which meets World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, this assay could be beneficial due to its rapid results, ease of use, and suitability for standardized self-testing.
| S-EPMC8153114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the accuracy of the AbC-19 Rapid Test lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN:Test accuracy study. SETTING:Laboratory based evaluation. PARTICIPANTS:2847 key workers (healthcare staff, fire and rescue officers, and police officers) in England in June 2020 (268 with a previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result (median 63 days previously), 2579 with unknown previous infection status); and 1995 pre-pandemic blood donors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:AbC-19 sensitivity and specificity, estimated using known negative (pre-pandemic) and known positive (PCR confirmed) samples as reference standards and secondly using the Roche Elecsys anti-nucleoprotein assay, a highly sensitive laboratory immunoassay, as a reference standard in samples from key workers. RESULTS:Test result bands were often weak, with positive/negative discordance by three trained laboratory staff for 3.9% of devices. Using consensus readings, for known positive and negative samples sensitivity was 92.5% (95% confidence interval 88.8% to 95.1%) and specificity was 97.9% (97.2% to 98.4%). Using an immunoassay reference standard, sensitivity was 94.2% (90.7% to 96.5%) among PCR confirmed cases but 84.7% (80.6% to 88.1%) among other people with antibodies. This is consistent with AbC-19 being more sensitive when antibody concentrations are higher, as people with PCR confirmation tended to have more severe disease whereas only 62% (218/354) of seropositive participants had had symptoms. If 1 million key workers were tested with AbC-19 and 10% had actually been previously infected, 84?700 true positive and 18?900 false positive results would be projected. The probability that a positive result was correct would be 81.7% (76.8% to 85.8%). CONCLUSIONS:AbC-19 sensitivity was lower among unselected populations than among PCR confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the scope for overestimation of assay performance in studies involving only PCR confirmed cases, owing to "spectrum bias." Assuming that 10% of the tested population have had SARS-CoV-2 infection, around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives. STUDY REGISTRATION:ISRCTN 56609224.
| S-EPMC7656121 | biostudies-literature