Pitfalls of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing at emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Current method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is an RT-PCR test on the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. Rapid diagnosis is essential for containing viral spread and triage of symptomatic patients presenting to hospital ER departments. As a faster alternative to RT-PCR, we evaluated a SARS-Cov-2 Rapid Antigen test in symptomatic patients presenting to hospital ER departments. METHODS: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test (SD Biosensor) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: Our study showed inferior performance of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Firstly, because of the lack of specificity, which is potentially life-threatening due to the association of nosocomial-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondly, with a sensitivity of 45.5%, it is impossible to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection, resulting in reflex PCR-testing. Comparison of viral load in RT-PCR positive samples with corresponding antigen results showed a significant difference between antigen positive and negative samples. COVID-19 infection will not be detected in patients admitted to the hospital in an early or late phase, typically associated with low viral loads. Sensitivity increases when testing within 5-7 symptomatic days, but the implementation of this cut-off is impractical in ER settings. However, diagnostic performance is better to detect high viral load (> = 5 log10 copies/mL) linked with contagiousness. CONCLUSION: Our study showed inferior performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen test (SD Biosensor) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 which limits its use as a diagnostic gatekeeper in ER departments, but is able to differentiate contagious individuals.

Comparison of Two Commercial Colorimetric Broth Microdilution Tests for Candida Susceptibility Testing: Sensititre YeastOne versus MICRONAUT-AM.

Two colorimetric broth microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests were compared, Sensititre YeastOne and MICRONAUT-AM for nine antifungal agents. One hundred clinical Candida isolates were tested, representing a realistic population for susceptibility testing in daily practice. The reproducibility characteristics were comparable. Only for fluconazole, caspofungin, 5-flucytosine and amphotericin B, an essential agreement of ≥90% could be demonstrated. Sensititre minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were systematically higher than MICRONAUT MICs for all antifungals, except for itraconazole. CLSI clinical breakpoints (CBPs) and epidemiological cut-off values (ECVs) were used for Sensititre MICs while for MICRONAUT the EUCAST CBPs and ECVs were used. Only fluconazole, micafungin, and amphotericin B had a categorical agreement of ≥90%. For fluconazole, micafungin, and amphotericin B the susceptibility proportions were comparable. Susceptibility proportion of posaconazole and voriconazole was higher using the MICRONAUT system. For itraconazole and anidulafungin, the susceptibility proportion was higher using Sensititre. It was not possible to determine the true MIC values or the correctness of a S/I/R result since both commercial systems were validated against a different reference method. These findings show that there is a significant variability in susceptibility pattern and consequently on use of antifungals in daily practice, depending on the choice of commercial system.