RESUMEN
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen have been proposed as a complementary option to the more costly and time consuming reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We assessed five commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs (ASSUT EUROPE (Rome, Italy), Besthree (Taizhou, China), Encode (Zhuhai, China), Fortress (Antrim UK), and Hughes Medical (Buckinghamshire, UK), using samples collected from hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 and compared these results against established RT-PCR assays with the aim of estimating test performance characteristics. We performed a diagnostic accuracy study of the five LFAs on 110 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and 75 COVID-19 negative control participants. Assay evaluation was performed using a modified version of each manufacturer's protocol allowing for parallel testing of a single sample on multiple assays. Additional variables were studied including infection acquisition, oxygenation requirements at time of swabbing, and patient outcomes. The 110 patients were 48% (53) female, with mean age 67 years (range 26-100 years), and 77% (85) cases were community onset SARS-CoV-2. Across the five assays, sensitivity ranged from 64 (95% CI 53-73) to 76% (95% CI 65-85); Fortress performed best with sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 65-85). Specificity was high across all assays with 4/5 LFAs achieving 100%. LFA sensitivity was not dependant on RT-PCR cycle thresholds. SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs may complement RT-PCR testing to facilitate early diagnosis and provide community testing strategies for identification of patients with COVID-19, however we find suboptimal test performance characteristics across a range of commercially available manufacturers, below WHO and MHRA pre-set sensitivity performance thresholds. With such variation in sensitivity between LFAs and PCR testing and between assay brands, we advise caution in the deployment of LFAs outside of environments with clinical oversight.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Femenino , Humanos , Pruebas Inmunológicas , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nucleocápside , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadAsunto(s)
Hospitalización , Hospitales Militares , Personal Militar , Unidades Móviles de Salud , Adolescente , Adulto , Celulitis (Flemón)/epidemiología , Enfermedades Transmisibles/epidemiología , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Fiebre/epidemiología , Gastroenteritis/epidemiología , Trastornos de Estrés por Calor/epidemiología , Humanos , Irak , Guerra de Irak 2003-2011 , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Convulsiones/epidemiología , Síncope/epidemiología , Reino Unido , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a global pandemic. Case identification is currently made by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) during the acute phase and largely restricted to healthcare laboratories. Serological assays are emerging but independent validation is urgently required to assess their utility. We evaluated five different point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 antibody test kits against PCR, finding concordance across the assays (n = 15). We subsequently tested 200 patients using the OrientGene COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette and find a sensitivity of 74% in the early infection period (day 5-9 post symptom onset), with 100% sensitivity not seen until day 13, demonstrating inferiority to PCR testing in the infectious period. Negative rate was 96%, but in validating the serological tests uncovered potential false-negatives from PCR testing late-presenting cases. A positive predictive value (PPV) of 37% in the general population precludes any use for general screening. Where a case definition is applied however, the PPV is substantially improved (95.4%), supporting use of serology testing in carefully targeted, high-risk populations. Larger studies in specific patient cohorts, including those with mild infection are urgently required to inform on the applicability of POC serological assays to help control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and improve case finding of patients that may experience late complications.
Asunto(s)
Prueba de COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/virología , Pacientes Internos , Pruebas en el Punto de Atención , SARS-CoV-2 , Pruebas Serológicas , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , COVID-19/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina G/inmunología , Inmunoglobulina M/inmunología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Vigilancia en Salud Pública , Reacción en Cadena en Tiempo Real de la Polimerasa , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , SARS-CoV-2/genética , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
HAPEX, a bone analog material, with similar properties to cortical bone, has been studied in vitro with particular reference to the effect of surface topography. The stimulation of a favorable bone response by this composite depends on optimization of the hydroxyapatite (HA) content in relation to the material bioactivity without compromising the mechanical characteristics. In this study we have started to investigate the effects of surface topography on cell attachment and subsequent cellular behavior in relation to proliferation. Different volumes of HA (20% and 40%) were added to a high density polyethylene (HDPE) matrix to produce the test materials. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) were used to examine cell morphology on HAPEX, and the surface characteristics produced by different machining protocols. The measurement of cellular DNA and tritiated thymidine ([3H]-TdR) incorporation has been used to asses cell proliferation upon the materials. The results show that the material surface topography has a large influence on cell proliferation and attachment, and with a controlled material topography the 40% vol HA/HDPE composite gives the greater biological response compared to the 20% vol HA/HDPE composite.