Assessing a novel, lab-free, point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 (CovidNudge): a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Access 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. METHODS: Between 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. FINDINGS: We 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. INTERPRETATION: The 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. FUNDING: National 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.

Supervised machine learning to support the diagnosis of bacterial infection in the context of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial infection has been challenging to diagnose in patients with COVID-19. We developed and evaluated supervised machine learning algorithms to support the diagnosis of secondary bacterial infection in hospitalized patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Inpatient data at three London hospitals for the first COVD-19 wave in March and April 2020 were extracted. Demographic, blood test and microbiology data for individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2-positive PCR were obtained. A Gaussian Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Artificial Neural Network were trained and compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC). The best performing algorithm (SVM with 21 blood test variables) was prospectively piloted in July 2020. AUCROC was calculated for the prediction of a positive microbiological sample within 48 h of admission. RESULTS: A total of 15 599 daily blood profiles for 1186 individual patients were identified to train the algorithms; 771/1186 (65%) individuals were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive. Clinically significant microbiology results were present for 166/1186 (14%) patients during admission. An SVM algorithm trained with 21 routine blood test variables and over 8000 individual profiles had the best performance. AUCROC was 0.913, sensitivity 0.801 and specificity 0.890. Prospective testing on 54 patients on admission (28/54, 52% SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive) demonstrated an AUCROC of 0.960 (95% CI: 0.90-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: An SVM using 21 routine blood test variables had excellent performance at inferring the likelihood of positive microbiology. Further prospective evaluation of the algorithms ability to support decision making for the diagnosis of bacterial infection in COVID-19 cohorts is underway.

Bacterial and Fungal Coinfection in Individuals With Coronavirus: A Rapid Review To Support COVID-19 Antimicrobial Prescribing.

BACKGROUND: To explore and describe the current literature surrounding bacterial/fungal coinfection in patients with coronavirus infection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched using broad-based search criteria relating to coronavirus and bacterial coinfection. Articles presenting clinical data for patients with coronavirus infection (defined as SARS-1, MERS, SARS-CoV-2, and other coronavirus) and bacterial/fungal coinfection reported in English, Mandarin, or Italian were included. Data describing bacterial/fungal coinfections, treatments, and outcomes were extracted. Secondary analysis of studies reporting antimicrobial prescribing in SARS-CoV-2 even in absence of coinfection was performed. RESULTS: 1007 abstracts were identified. Eighteen full texts reporting bacterial/fungal coinfection were included. Most studies did not identify or report bacterial/fungal coinfection (85/140; 61%). Nine of 18 (50%) studies reported on COVID-19, 5/18 (28%) on SARS-1, 1/18 (6%) on MERS, and 3/18 (17%) on other coronaviruses. For COVID-19, 62/806 (8%) patients were reported as experiencing bacterial/fungal coinfection during hospital admission. Secondary analysis demonstrated wide use of broad-spectrum antibacterials, despite a paucity of evidence for bacterial coinfection. On secondary analysis, 1450/2010 (72%) of patients reported received antimicrobial therapy. No antimicrobial stewardship interventions were described. For non-COVID-19 cases, bacterial/fungal coinfection was reported in 89/815 (11%) of patients. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite frequent prescription of broad-spectrum empirical antimicrobials in patients with coronavirus-associated respiratory infections, there is a paucity of data to support the association with respiratory bacterial/fungal coinfection. Generation of prospective evidence to support development of antimicrobial policy and appropriate stewardship interventions specific for the COVID-19 pandemic is urgently required.