Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern. RESULTS: We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing. CONCLUSION: Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

Multi-omics integration identifies a selective vulnerability of colorectal cancer subtypes to YM155.

Tumor heterogeneity is a major challenge to the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Recently, a transcriptome-based classification was developed, segregating CRC into four consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) with distinct biological and clinical characteristics. Here, we applied the CMS classification on CRC cell lines to identify novel subtype-specific drug vulnerabilities. We combined publicly available transcriptome data from multiple resources to assign 157 CRC cell lines to CMS. By integrating results from large-scale drug screens, we discovered that the CMS1 subtype is highly vulnerable to the BIRC5 suppressor YM155. We confirmed our results using an independent panel of CRC cell lines and demonstrated a 100-fold higher sensitivity of CMS1. This vulnerability was specific to YM155 and not observed for commonly used chemotherapeutic agents. In CMS1 CRC, low concentrations of YM155 induced apoptosis and expression signatures associated with ER stress-mediated apoptosis signaling. Using a genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 screen, we further discovered a novel role of genes involved in LDL-receptor trafficking as modulators of YM155 sensitivity in the CRC cell line HCT116. Our work shows that combining drug response data with CMS classification in cell lines can reveal selective vulnerabilities and proposes YM155 as a novel subtype-specific drug.