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.

Prospective study of three saliva qualitative antigen testing kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among mainly symptomatic patients in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid qualitative antigen testing has been widely used for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 with nasopharyngeal samples. Saliva samples have been used as alternative samples, but the analytical performance of those samples for qualitative antigen testing has not been sufficiently evaluated. METHODS: A prospective observational study evaluated the analytical performance of three In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) approved COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits for saliva between June 2022 and July 2022 in Japan using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as a reference. A nasopharyngeal sample and a saliva sample were simultaneously obtained, and RT-qPCR was performed. RESULTS: In total, saliva samples and nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 471 individuals (RT-qPCR-positive, n = 145) for the analysis. Of these, 96.6% were symptomatic. The median copy numbers were 1.7 × 106 copies/mL for saliva samples and 1.2 × 108 copies/mL for nasopharyngeal samples (p < 0.001). Compared with the reference, the sensitivity and specificity were 44.8% and 99.7% for ImunoAce SARS-CoV-2 Saliva, 57.2% and 99.1% for Espline SARS-CoV-2 N, and 60.0% and 99.1% for QuickChaser Auto SARS-CoV-2, respectively. The sensitivities of all antigen testing kit were 100% for saliva samples with a high viral load (>107 copies/mL), whereas the sensitivities were <70% for high-viral-load nasopharyngeal samples (>107 copies/mL). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits with saliva showed high specificity, but the sensitivity varied among kits, and were also insufficient for the detection of symptomatic COVID-19 patients.

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.

Clinical Performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B Assay in Nasal Samples.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care type molecular diagnostic tests have been used for detecting SARS-CoV-2, although their clinical utility with nasal samples has yet to be established. This study evaluated the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B (Liat) assay in nasal samples. METHODS: Nasal and nasopharyngeal samples were collected and were tested using the Liat, the cobas 6800 system and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B (cobas), and a method developed by National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan (NIID). RESULTS: A total of 814 nasal samples were collected. The Liat assay was positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 113 (13.9%). The total, positive, and negative concordance rate between the Liat and cobas/NIID assays were 99.3%/98.4%, 99.1%/100%, and 99.3%/98.2%, respectively. Five samples were positive only using the Liat assay. Their Ct values ranged from 31.9 to 37.2. The Ct values of the Liat assay were significantly lower (p < 0.001) but were correlated (p < 0.001) with those of other molecular assays. In the participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the Liat assay using nasopharyngeal samples, 88.2% of their nasal samples also tested positive using the Liat assay. CONCLUSION: The Liat assay showed high concordance with other molecular assays in nasal samples. Some discordance occurred in samples with Ct values > 30 on the Liat assay.

A prospective clinical evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test using anterior nasal samples.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic accuracy of antigen testing of anterior nasal (AN) samples for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has not been evaluated in the Japanese population. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (rapid antigen test) using AN samples. METHODS: Two AN samples and one nasopharyngeal (NP) sample were collected from individuals undergoing screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results of the rapid antigen test and the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test using AN samples were compared to those of RT-PCR tests using NP samples. RESULTS: Samples were collected from 800 participants, 95 and 110 of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR tests of AN and NP samples, respectively. The overall sensitivity/specificity of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 72.7%/100% and 86.4%/100%, respectively. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 84.7% and 94.9%, respectively. In asymptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 58.8% and 76.5%, respectively. The sensitivity of the AN rapid antigen test was over 80% in cases with cycle threshold (Ct) values < 25; it significantly decreased with an increase in the Ct values (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The rapid antigen test with AN samples had a favorable sensitivity, especially in symptomatic cases or in cases with Ct values < 25. It gave no false-positive results. Compared with AN-RT PCR, the AN rapid antigen test had a modestly lower sensitivity in asymptomatic cases.

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.

Clinical evaluation of the rapid nucleic acid amplification point-of-care test (Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2) in the analysis of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples.

INTRODUCTION: Smart Gene is a point-of-care (POC)-type automated molecular testing platform that can be performed with 1 min of hands-on-time. Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 is a newly developed Smart Gene molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The analytical and clinical performance of Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 has not been evaluated. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples were prospectively collected from subjects referred to the local PCR center from March 25 to July 5, 2021. Two swabs were simultaneously obtained for the Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 assay and the reference real-time RT-PCR assay, and the results of Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 were compared to the reference real-time RT-PCR assay. RESULTS: Among a total of 1150 samples, 68 of 791 nasopharyngeal samples and 51 of 359 anterior nasal samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the reference real-time RT-PCR assay. In the testing of nasopharyngeal samples, Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed the total, positive and negative concordance of 99.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.4-99.7%), 94.1% (95% CI: 85.6-98.4%) and 99.7% (95% CI: 99.0-100%), respectively. For anterior nasal samples, Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed the total, positive and negative concordance of 98.9% (95% CI: 97.2-99.7%), 98.0% (95% CI: 89.6-100%) and 99.0% (95% CI: 97.2-99.8%), respectively. In total, 5 samples were positive in the reference real-time RT-PCR assay and negative in the Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 assay, whereas 5 samples were negative in the reference real-time RT-PCR assay and positive in the Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 assay. CONCLUSION: Smart Gene SARS-CoV-2 showed sufficient analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples.

Diagnostic performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): A prospective observational study with nasopharyngeal samples.

INTRODUCTION: Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and Real-time RT-PCR. RESULTS: During the study period, 1127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%-87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%-98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%-81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%-99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%-96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%-93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of digital immunoassay antigen tests was superior to that of visually analyzed antigen tests, but the rate of false-positive results increased with the introduction of a digital immunoassay device.

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.

The evaluation of a novel digital immunochromatographic assay with silver amplification to detect SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid antigen tests are convenient for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, they have lower sensitivities than nucleic acid amplification tests. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of Quick Chaser® Auto SARS-CoV-2, a novel digital immunochromatographic assay that is expected to have higher sensitivity than conventional antigen tests. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted between February 8 and March 24, 2021. We simultaneously obtained two nasopharyngeal samples, one for evaluation with the QuickChaser® Auto SARS-CoV-2 antigen test and the other for assessment with reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), considered the gold-standard reference test. The limit of detection (LOD) of the new antigen test was compared with those of four other commercially available rapid antigen tests. RESULTS: A total of 1401 samples were analyzed. SARS-CoV-2 was detected by reference RT-PCR in 83 (5.9%) samples, of which 36 (43.4%) were collected from symptomatic patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 74.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 64.0-83.6%), 99.8% (95% CI: 99.5-100%), 96.9% (95% CI: 89.2-99.6%), and 98.4% (95% CI: 97.6-99.0%), respectively. When limited to samples with a cycle threshold (Ct) < 30 or those from symptomatic patients, the sensitivity increased to 98.3% and 88.9%, respectively. The QuickChaser® Auto SARS-CoV-2 detected 34-120 copies/test, which indicated greater sensitivity than the other rapid antigen tests. CONCLUSIONS: QuickChaser® Auto SARS-CoV-2 showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity in clinical samples of symptomatic patients. The sensitivity was comparable to RT-PCR in samples with Ct < 30.

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.

Predicting Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydophila pneumoniae in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pneumonia: epidemiological study of respiratory tract infection using multiplex PCR assays.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common illness that can lead to mortality. ß-lactams are ineffective against atypical pathogen including Mycoplasma pneumoniae. We used molecular examinations to develop a decision tree to predict atypical pathogens with CAP and to examine the prevalence of macrolide resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae. We conducted a prospective observational study of patients aged ≥ 18 years who had fever and respiratory symptoms and were diagnosed with CAP in one of two community hospitals between December 2016 and October 2018. We assessed combinations of clinical variables that best predicted atypical pathogens with CAP by classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Pneumonia was defined as respiratory symptoms and new infiltration recognized on chest X-ray or chest computed tomography. We analyzed 47 patients (21 females, 44.7%, mean age: 47.6 years). Atypical pathogens were detected in 15 patients (31.9%; 12 Mycoplasma pneumoniae, 3 Chlamydophila pneumoniae). Ten patients carried macrolide resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (macrolide resistant rate 83.3%). CART analysis suggested that factors associated with presence of atypical pathogens were absence of crackles, age < 45 years, and LD ≥ 183 U/L (sensitivity 86.7% [59.5, 98.3], specificity 96.9% [83.8, 99.9]). ur simple clinical decision rules can be used to identify primary care patients with CAP that are at risk for atypical pathogens. Further research is needed to validate its usefulness in various populations.Trial registration Clinical Trial (UMIN trial ID: UMIN000035346).

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.

Multicenter evaluation of Verigene Enteric Pathogens Nucleic Acid Test for detection of gastrointestinal pathogens.

We investigated the efficiency of the Verigene Enteric Pathogens Nucleic Acid Test (Verigene EP test), which is an automated microarray-based assay system that enables rapid and simultaneous genetic detection of gastrointestinal pathogens and toxins, including those in the Campylobacter Group, Salmonella species, Shigella species, the Vibrio Group, Yersinia enterocolitica, Shiga toxin 1 and 2, norovirus GI/GII, and rotavirus A. Three clinical laboratories evaluated the Verigene EP test, using 268 stool samples for bacterial and toxin genes and 167 samples for viral genes. Culture-based reference methods were used for the detection of bacteria and toxins, while a different molecular assay was used for viral detection. The overall concordance rate between the Verigene EP test and the reference methods for the 1940 assays was 99.0%. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Verigene EP test were 97.0% and 99.3%, respectively. Of the 19 samples with discordant results, 13 samples were false positives and six were false negatives. The Verigene EP test simultaneously detected two targets in 11 samples; overall, the test demonstrated high efficiency in detecting crucial diarrheagenic pathogens, indicating its suitability for clinical practice.

Physicians' prediction for the assessment of atypical pathogens in respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute respiratory tract infections are frequently prescribed antimicrobials despite high rates of virus detection. Physicians may overprescribe antimicrobials owing to the concern of bacterial infections, including those because of atypical pathogens. We investigated the accuracy of clinical predictions concerning atypical pathogen infections. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult patients who presented with a fever and cough in outpatient clinics between December 2016 and August 2018. After taking a history and performing physical examinations, physicians predicted the possibility of respiratory infections because of atypical pathogens. Disease probabilities were categorized into 3 grades (high: ≥50%, intermediate: 20% ≥ and <50%, and low: <20%) and were judged by physicians who were taking care of the patients. Confirmation of atypical pathogens was performed by comprehensive molecular analyses of respiratory samples. RESULTS: Atypical pathogens were detected in 21 of 210 patients. A close contact history (odds ratio [OR]: 11.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-53.5) and the presence of pneumonia (OR: 12.9, CI: 4.3-39.2) were associated with the detections. Atypical pathogens were detected in 32.3% of high-probability cases (10/31), while atypical pathogens were only detected in 8.8% of intermediate-probability cases (8/91) and 3.4% of low-probability cases (3/88) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study indicates that physicians' predictions were associated with the detection of atypical pathogens; however, overestimation was observed.

Analytical and clinical evaluation of a point-of-care molecular diagnostic system and its influenza A/B assay for rapid molecular detection of the influenza virus.

Recently, rapid molecular detection systems have been used for point-of-care testing for the diagnosis of influenza worldwide. Here, we evaluated the performance of the cobas Liat system and the cobas Influenza A/B assay (Liat) using fresh nasopharyngeal samples collected from a Japanese population between December 2017 and February 2018. The performance of the examination was compared with that of antigen testing and a conventional polymerase chain reaction (nested-PCR) method. A total of 159 patients were included in this study, and 77 tested positive using Liat. The concordance rate between Liat and nested PCR was 97.5%. The median time between the ordering of testing and completion of molecular analyses using Liat was 30 min (interquartile range: 28-35 min). The overall sensitivity and specificity of antigen testing were 57.1% and 100%, respectively. The duration from symptom onset to examination did not alter antigen testing sensitivity. The current study demonstrates the high performance of Liat for the rapid molecular identification of the influenza virus.

Prospective intervention study with a microarray-based, multiplexed, automated molecular diagnosis instrument (Verigene system) for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections, and its impact on the clinical outcomes.

The Verigene Gram-positive blood culture test (BC-GP) and the Verigene Gram-negative blood culture test (BC-GN) identify representative Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and their antimicrobial resistance by detecting resistance genes within 3 h. Significant benefits are anticipated due to their rapidity and accuracy, however, their clinical utility is unproven in clinical studies. We performed a clinical trial between July 2014 and December 2014 for hospitalized bacteremia patients. During the intervention period (N = 88), Verigene BC-GP and BC-GN was used along with conventional microbiological diagnostic methods, while comparing the clinical data and outcomes with those during the control period (N = 147) (UMIN registration ID: UMIN000014399). The median duration between the initiation of blood culture incubation and the reporting time of the Verigene system results was 21.7 h (IQR 18.2-26.8) and the results were found in 88% of the cases by the next day after blood cultures were obtained without discordance. The hospital-onset infection rate was higher in the control period (24% vs. 44%, p = 0.002), however, no differences were seen in co-morbidities and severity between the control and intervention periods. During the intervention period, the time of appropriate antimicrobial agents' initiation was significantly earlier than that in the control period (p = 0.001) and most cases (90%; 79/88) were treated with antimicrobial agents with in-vitro susceptibility for causative bacteria the day after the blood culture was obtained. The costs for antimicrobial agents were lower in the intervention period (3618 yen vs. 8505 yen, p = 0.001). The 30-day mortality was lower in the intervention period (3% vs. 13%, p = 0.019).

Dialister pneumosintes bacteremia caused by dental caries and sinusitis.

A 62-year-old Japanese woman was hospitalized at the Department of Senology for positive signals on two sets of blood cultures obtained in the Emergency Department. The initial physical examination with enhanced computed tomography of the chest and abdomen did not identify the infectious source. Dialister pneumosintes was identified on 16S rRNA sequencing, and dental caries with sinusitis were subsequently diagnosed based on a dental examination and magnetic resonance imaging. History taking with respect to dental hygiene and oral examinations should be performed in daily clinical practice, especially in immunosuppressed patients.