Evaluation of CLINITEST® Rapid Covid-19 + Influenza antigen test in a cohort of symptomatic patients in an emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid management of patients with respiratory tract infections in hospital emergency departments is one of the main objectives since the concurrent circulation of respiratory viruses following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The use of new combined point-of-care antigen tests for detecting influenza A/B and SARS-CoV-2 represents an advantage in response time over the molecular tests. The objective was to evaluate the suitability of the CLINITEST® Rapid Covid-19 + Influenza Antigen test (Siemens Healthineers, Germany) (RCIA test) by measuring the sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa, and cut-off values. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal samples were collected from a randomised group of symptomatic patients of all ages at emergency department during January-February 2023. In parallel, these patients were screened for influenza A/B, and SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. The Ct (cycle threshold) values were collected for positive [RT-PCR (+) /RCIA test (+)] and false negative [(RT-PCR (+) /RCIA test (-)] samples. A subanalysis was performed in the paediatric population (< 16 years-old). RESULTS: We included 545 patients (55.8% females) with a median age of 7 years-old (IQR: 1-66.5). The RCIA test showed a sensitivity of 59.7% [95%CI: 46.9-67.33] for influenza A, 65.6% [95%CI: 49.5-80.3] for influenza B, and 76.9% [95%CI: 45.8-84.8] for SARS-CoV-2. The specificity was between 90.7%-99.7% with a moderate/high level of agreement with RT-PCR (kappa score: 0.6-0.8) for the three respiratory viruses included in the RCIA test. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of the RCIA test is insufficient for screening of patients, including patients with low Ct values (Ct > 20). Despite its good specificity and Cohen's kappa value, its use as a screening test is not comparable to RT-PCR systems in the ED environment with a high number of false negative results.

Theranostic applications of multifunctional carbon nanomaterials.

Nanobiotechnology is one of the leading research areas in biomedical science, developing rapidly worldwide. Among various types of nanoparticles, carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) have attracted a great deal of attention from the scientific community, especially with respect to their prospective application in the field of disease diagnosis and therapy. The unique features of these nanomaterials, including favorable size, high surface area, and electrical, structural, optical, and chemical properties, have provided an excellent opportunity for their utilization in theranostic systems. Carbon nanotubes, carbon quantum dots, graphene, and fullerene are the most employed CNMs in biomedical fields. They have been considered safe and efficient for non-invasive diagnostic techniques such as fluorescence imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, and biosensors. Various functionalized CNMs exhibit a great capacity to improve cell targeting of anti-cancer drugs. Due to their thermal properties, they have been extensively used in cancer photothermal and photodynamic therapy assisted by laser irradiation and CNMs. CNMs also can cross the blood-brain barrier and have the potential to treat various brain disorders, for instance, neurodegenerative diseases, by removing amyloid fibrils. This review has summarized and emphasized on biomedical application of CNMs and their recent advances in diagnosis and therapy.

Stereotactic noninvasive volume measurement compared with geometric measurement for indications and evaluation of gamma knife treatment.

OBJECT: Volume estimation is one of the most important criteria in the evaluation and follow up of radiosurgical treatments and outcomes; however, several limitations are involved in the calculation estimation of target volumes. METHODS: Retrospective and prospective studies were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a new noninvasive stereotactic method when it is compared with geometric volume calculation of intracranial tumors for planning stereotactic radiosurgery treatment as well as for follow up and outcome evaluation. Two equations were created that permit comparison of the calculated and measured volumes. These equations took linear and quadratic forms, respectively. Volume estimation using the stereotactic approach compared with traditional volume calculation gave more accurate results regardless of the shape and size of the lesion. CONCLUSIONS: The use of stereotactic volume calculation is highly recommended in planning, follow up, and determination of the outcome in patients participating in radiosurgical treatment and should lead to more uniform reports of the response to treatment.