Testing for COVID-19: a 2023 update.

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, are more sensitive for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 than rapid antigen tests (RATS), and are the gold standard for diagnosis of acute COVID-19. However NAATs can remain positive for weeks following infection due to low-level shedding of non-viable viral fragments. RATs (in particular self-testing) are the mainstay of COVID-19 diagnosis due to their convenience, speed and high specificity. The sensitivity of RATs is highest within seven days of symptom onset. A negative RAT result may warrant a NAAT or repeat RAT for confirmation. The presence of spike antibodies is consistent with either vaccination or infection. Nucleocapsid antibodies suggest a previous infection. Serological tests measuring neutralising antibodies that infer immunity are not readily available.

The effects of culture independent diagnostic testing on the diagnosis and reporting of enteric bacterial pathogens in Queensland, 2010 to 2014.

Changes in diagnostic laboratory testing procedures can impact on the number of cases notified and the public health surveillance of enteric pathogens. Culture independent diagnostic testing using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test was introduced for the rapid detection of bacterial enteric pathogens in pathology laboratories in Queensland, Australia, from late 2013 onwards. We conducted a retrospective descriptive study using laboratory data to assess the impact of the introduction of PCR testing on four common enteric pathogens, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shigella and Yersinia, in Queensland between 2010 and 2014. The number of stool specimens tested and the proportion positive for each of the four pathogens increased in 2014 after the introduction of culture independent diagnostic testing. Among the specimens tested by both PCR and culture, 12% of Salmonella positive stools, 36% of Campylobacter positive stools, 74% of Shigella / enteroinvasive Escherichia coli positive stools and 65% of Yersinia positive stools were PCR positive only. Including those where culture was not performed, 19% of Salmonella positive stools, 44% of Campylobacter positive stools, 83% of Shigella positive stools and 79% of Yersinia positive stools had no cultured isolate available for further characterisation. The detection and tracking of foodborne and non-foodborne gastrointestinal outbreaks will become more difficult as culture independent diagnostic testing becomes more widespread. Until new techniques for characterisation of pathogens directly from clinical specimens have been developed, we recommend laboratories continue to culture specimens concurrently or reflexively with culture independent diagnostic tests.

Does Lyme disease exist in Australia?

There is no convincing evidence that classic Lyme disease occurs in Australia, nor is there evidence that the causative agent, Borrelia burgdorferi, is found in Australian animals or ticks. Lyme disease, however, can be acquired overseas but diagnosed in Australia; most people presenting with laboratory-confirmed Lyme disease in Australia were infected in Europe. Despite the lack of evidence that Lyme disease can be acquired in Australia, growing numbers of patients, their supporters, and some politicians demand diagnoses and treatment according to the protocols of the "chronic Lyme disease" school of thought. Antibiotic therapy for chronic "Lyme disease-like illness" can cause harm to both the individual (eg, cannula-related intravenous sepsis) and the broader community (increased antimicrobial resistance rates). Until there is strong evidence from well performed clinical studies that bacteria present in Australia cause a chronic debilitating illness that responds to prolonged antibiotics, treating patients with "Lyme disease-like illness" with prolonged antibiotic therapy is unjustified, and is likely to do much more harm than good.