Development of an Immunochromatography Assay to Detect Marburg Virus and Ravn Virus.

The recent outbreaks of Marburg virus disease (MVD) in Guinea, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, and Tanzania, none of which had reported previous outbreaks, imply increasing risks of spillover of the causative viruses, Marburg virus (MARV) and Ravn virus (RAVV), from their natural host animals. These outbreaks have emphasized the need for the development of rapid diagnostic tests for this disease. Using monoclonal antibodies specific to the viral nucleoprotein, we developed an immunochromatography (IC) assay for the rapid diagnosis of MVD. The IC assay was found to be capable of detecting approximately 102-4 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/test of MARV and RAVV in the infected culture supernatants. We further confirmed that the IC assay could detect the MARV and RAVV antigens in the serum samples from experimentally infected nonhuman primates. These results indicate that the IC assay to detect MARV can be a useful tool for the rapid point-of-care diagnosis of MVD.

Diagnostic performance of microscopic stool examination in Campylobacter infection performed by different medical specialties.

Background: Microscopic examination of stool samples can contribute to the early diagnosis of Campylobacter gastroenteritis. However, it is unclear whether the diagnostic performance is reliable when performed by physicians. Methods: This prospective study included fresh stool samples collected from patients with gastroenteritis between August 2018 and March 2020. The samples were used for microscopic examination through Gram staining. Two physicians, a clinical laboratory technician, and microbiologists performed the examinations. In addition, antigen tests (QuickNavi-Campylobacter; Denka Co., Ltd.) were evaluated for the samples collected between May 2019 and March 2020. Infection with Campylobacter spp. was confirmed when stool cultures or polymerase chain reaction tests provided positive results. Results: Microscopic examination was performed on 205 samples, of which 46 (22.4%) were positive for Campylobacter spp. For the microscopic examination, the sensitivity and specificity were 53.5% and 98.1% for physician A, 46.7% and 96.2% for physician B, 63.0% and 100% for the clinical laboratory technician, and 67.4% and 100% for microbiologists, respectively. The antigen testing was evaluated in 131 of the 205 samples and showed a sensitivity of 93.3% and specificity of 99.0%. Conclusions: Microscopic examination of the stool samples showed high specificity. The sensitivity when the examinations were performed by the physicians was insufficient. The rapid antigen tests can reliably detect Campylobacter spp. in stool samples.

Analytical performance of the rapid qualitative antigen kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during widespread circulation of the Omicron variant.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid qualitative antigen testing is essential in the clinical management of COVID-19. However, most evaluations of antigen tests have been performed before the emergence of the Omicron variant. METHODS: This prospective observational study evaluated QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, a rapid antigen detection test between December 2021 and February 2022 in Japan, using real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR as a reference. Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen testing and for RT-PCR. Variant analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing was also performed. RESULTS: In total, nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 1073 participants (417 positive; 919 symptomatic; 154 asymptomatic) for analysis. Compared with those of RT-PCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.2% (95% CI: 91.6%-96.3%), 99.5% (95% CI: 98.7%-99.9%), 99.2% (95% CI: 97.8%-99.8%), and 96.5% (95% CI: 94.8%-97.7%), respectively. The sensitivity among symptomatic individuals was 94.3% (95% CI: 91.5%-96.4%). Overall, 85.9% of sequences were classified as Omicron sublineage BA.1, 12.4% were Omicron sublineage BA.2, and 1.6% were Delta B.1.617.2. (Delta variant). Most of the samples (87.1%) had Ct values of <25, and the sensitivity was 47.4% for low viral load samples (Ct ≥ 30); a similar trend has been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag test showed sufficient diagnostic performance for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 from nasopharyngeal samples. However, the current study was mainly performed in symptomatic patients and the results are not sufficiently applicable for asymptomatic patients.

A prospective evaluation of diagnostic performance of a combo rapid antigen test QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag.

INTRODUCTION: Since respiratory sample collection is an uncomfortable experience, simultaneous detection of pathogens with a single swab is preferable. We prospectively evaluated the clinical performance of a newly developed antigen test QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag (Denka Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) which can detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses at the same time with a single testing device. METHODS: We included those who were suspected of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and were referred to a PCR center at Ibaraki prefecture in Japan, between August 2, 2021 to September 13, 2021, when the variant carrying L452R spike mutation of SARS-CoV-2 were prevalent. Additional nasopharyngeal samples and anterior nasal samples were obtained for the antigen test and were compared with a reference real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) using nasopharyngeal samples. RESULTS: In total, 1510 nasopharyngeal samples and 862 anterior nasal samples were evaluated. During the study period, influenza viruses were not detected by QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag and reference real-time RT-PCR. For SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 80.9% and 99.8%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity using anterior nasal samples were 67.8% and 100%, respectively. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivities increased to 88.3% with nasopharyngeal samples and 73.7% with anterior nasal samples. There were three cases of discrepant results between the antigen test and the real-time RT-PCR. All of them were positive with the antigen test but negative with the real-time RT-PCR in SARS-CoV-2 detection. CONCLUSION: A combo kit, QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag, showed an acceptable sensitivity and sufficient specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, especially using nasopharyngeal sample collected from symptomatic patients.

Evaluation and clinical implications of the time to a positive results of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Antigen tests for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 sometimes show positive lines earlier than their specified read time, although the implication of getting the results at earlier time is not well understood. METHODS: We prospectively collected additional nasopharyngeal samples from patients who had already tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR. The swab was used for an antigen test, QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag, and the time periods to get positive results were measured. RESULTS: In 84 of 96 (87.5%) analyzed cases, the results of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag were positive. The time to obtain positive results was 15.0 seconds in median (inter quartile range: 12.0-33.3, range 11-736) and was extended in samples with higher cycle thresholds (p < 0.001). Positive lines appeared within a minute in 85.7% of cases and within 5 min in 96.4%. CONCLUSION: QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag immediately showed positive results in most cases, and the time to a positive reaction may have indicated the viral load.

Prospective analytical performance evaluation of the QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag for asymptomatic individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Antigen testing may help screen for and detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in asymptomatic individuals. However, limited data regarding the diagnostic performance of antigen tests for this group are available. METHODS: We used clinical samples to prospectively evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the antigen test QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag. This study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7, 2020 and January 9, 2021. Two nasopharyngeal samples per patient were obtained with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test, and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). The diagnostic performance of the antigen test was compared between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, and the RT-PCR results were used as a reference. RESULTS: Among the 1934 collected samples, 188 (9.7%) demonstrated detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR; 76 (40.4%) of these 188 samples were from asymptomatic individuals, and over half of the total samples were asymptomatic (1073; 55.5%). The sensitivity of the antigen test was significantly lower for the asymptomatic group than for symptomatic patients (67.1% vs. 89.3%, respectively, p < 0.001). The specificity was 100% for both groups, and no false positives were observed among all 1934 samples. The median cycle threshold value for the asymptomatic group was significantly higher than that of the symptomatic group (24 vs. 20, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag showed lower sensitivity for the asymptomatic group than for symptomatic patients. However, its specificity was consistently high, and no false positives were found in this study.

Diagnostic performance and characteristics of anterior nasal collection for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test: a prospective study.

The clinical utility of antigen test using anterior nasal samples has not been well evaluated. We conducted a prospective study in a drive-through testing site located at a PCR center to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the antigen test QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag using anterior nasal samples and to compare the degrees of coughs or sneezes induction and the severity of pain between anterior nasal collection and nasopharyngeal collection. The study included a total of 862 participants, of which 91.6% were symptomatic. The median duration from symptom onset to sample collection was 2.0 days. Fifty-one participants tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) with nasopharyngeal samples, and all of them were symptomatic. In comparison to the findings of RT-PCR, the antigen test using anterior nasal samples showed 72.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 58.3-84.1%) and 100% specificity (95% CI 99.3-100%). Anterior nasal collection was associated with a significantly lower degree of coughs or sneezes induction and the severity of pain in comparison to nasopharyngeal collection (p < 0.001). The antigen test using anterior nasal samples showed moderate sensitivity in symptomatic patients who were at the early stages of the disease course but was less painful and induced fewer coughs or sneezes.

The evaluation of a newly developed antigen test (QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag) for SARS-CoV-2: A prospective observational study in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Several antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed worldwide, but their clinical utility has not been well established. In this study, we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag, a newly developed antigen test in Japan. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted at a PCR center between October 7 and December 5, 2020. The included patients were referred from a local public health center and 89 primary care facilities. We simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples with flocked swabs; one was used for the antigen test and the other for real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). Using the results of real-time RT-PCR as a reference, the performance of the antigen test was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1186 patients were included in this study, and the real-time RT-PCR detected SARS-CoV-2 in 105 (8.9%). Of these 105 patients, 33 (31.4%) were asymptomatic. The antigen test provided a 98.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.0%-99.4%) concordance rate with real-time RT-PCR, along with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 78.6%-92.5%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 99.7%-100%). False-negatives were observed in 14 patients, 8 of whom were asymptomatic and had a low viral load (cycle threshold (Ct) > 30). In symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 91.7% (95% CI: 82.7%-96.9%). CONCLUSION: QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag showed high specificity and sufficient sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. This test is a promising potential diagnostic modality especially in symptomatic patients.

Clinical Evaluation of QuickNaviTM-Ebola in the 2018 Outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The recent large outbreaks of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have highlighted the need for rapid diagnostic tests to control this disease. In this study, we clinically evaluated a previously developed immunochromatography-based kit, QuickNaviTM-Ebola. During the 2018 outbreaks in DRC, 928 blood samples from EVD-suspected cases were tested with QuickNaviTM-Ebola and the WHO-approved GeneXpert. The sensitivity and specificity of QuickNaviTM-Ebola, estimated by comparing it to GeneXpert-confirmed cases, were 85% (68/80) and 99.8% (846/848), respectively. These results indicate the practical reliability of QuickNaviTM-Ebola for point-of-care diagnosis of EVD.

Development of an Immunochromatography Assay (QuickNavi-Ebola) to Detect Multiple Species of Ebolaviruses.

The latest outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa has highlighted the urgent need for the development of rapid and reliable diagnostic assays. We used monoclonal antibodies specific to the ebolavirus nucleoprotein to develop an immunochromatography (IC) assay (QuickNavi-Ebola) for rapid diagnosis of EVD. The IC assay was first evaluated with tissue culture supernatants of infected Vero E6 cells and found to be capable of detecting 103-104 focus-forming units/mL of ebolaviruses. Using serum samples from experimentally infected nonhuman primates, we confirmed that the assay could detect the viral antigen shortly after disease onset. It was also noted that multiple species of ebolaviruses could be detected by the IC assay. Owing to the simplicity of the assay procedure and absence of requirements for special equipment and training, QuickNavi-Ebola is expected to be a useful tool for rapid diagnosis of EVD.

Colorectal cancer susceptibility associated with the hMLH1 V384D variant.

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant colorectal cancer susceptibility syndrome caused by a dysfunction of DNA mismatch repair genes, including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. However, the interpretation of certain changes in the mismatch repair genes is perplexing, as these changes do not necessarily affect the function of the protein. The pathogenicity of the hMLH1 1151T↷A variant, which results in an amino-acid substitution of valine for aspartic acid at codon 384 (V384D), is also controversial. This study was undertaken to assess the clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer patients harboring the hMLH1 V384D variant. Two independent Japanese cohorts, comprising 670 colorectal cancer patients and 332 cancer-free controls, respectively, were genotyped by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-RFLP. The allele frequency of V384D was 0.75% in the control group and 3.1% in the colorectal cancer group (p<0.001). Thus, the V384D variant was associated with increased colorectal cancer susceptibility. However, only 5% of the colorectal cancer patients carrying the V384D variant had high micro-satellite instability; most had microsatellite-stable cancer. Additionally, these patients had no clear familial history of Lynch syndrome-related tumors. The combined results indicate that hMLH1 V384D allele frequency was 4.1-fold higher in the colorectal cancer group than in the control group. Thus, the hMLH1 V384D variant may contribute to the development of microsatellite-instable as well as -stable colorectal cancer.