Performance and ease of use of a molecular point-of-care test for influenza A/B and RSV in patients presenting to primary care

Diagnostic accuracy of Savanna RVP4 (QuidelOrtho) for the detection of Influenza A virus, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2

Seasonal increase of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza virus A/B (Flu A/B), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) require rapid diagnostic test methods for the management of respiratory tract infections. In this study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of Savanna RVP4 (RVP4, QuidelOrtho) with Xpert Xpress Plus SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV (Xpert, Cepheid). Nasopharyngeal swabs from patients treated at a tertiary care hospital (Germany) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, Flu A/B, and RSV by RVP4 to assess diagnostic accuracy (reference standard: Xpert). The intra and inter assay precision of Ct-values was assessed by repeated test in triplicates (on day 1) and duplicates (days 2-3). All patients with a physician's order for a multiplex test for SARS-CoV-2, Flu, and RSV test were included. Duplicate swabs from the same patient, samples with a total volume ≤1 mL, or inappropriate shipment/storage were excluded. In total, 229 swabs were included between September 2023 and February 2024. The concordance between both tests was 96.5% (SARS-CoV-2), 98.7% (Flu A), and 99.6% (RSV). Flu B was not detected by both tests. The RVP4 test had a sensitivity of 85%-95% and a specificity of 100% for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and RSV. The intra and inter assay precision of Ct-values from RVP4 was 3% and 2% (SARS-CoV-2), 5% and 4% (Flu A), and 0% and 3% (RSV), respectively. The Savanna RVP4 has a favorable diagnostic accuracy for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and RSV.

IMPORTANCE

We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of a new point-of-care test for the rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza virus A/B (Flu A/B), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The new test has a concordance with the reference standard of 96.5% (SARS-CoV-2), 98.7% (Flu A), and 99.1% (RSV). The sensitivity of 85%-95% and specificity of 100% for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and RSV is comparable with similar nucleic acid amplification-based point of care tests but at lower costs.

Summarizing Study Characteristics and Diagnostic Performance of Commercially Available Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Scoping Literature Review in the COVID-19 Era

BACKGROUND

Nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review aimed to summarize the study characteristics of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV tests.

CONTENT

PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the diagnostic performance of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005-January 2021). Information on study design, patient and setting characteristics, and published diagnostic performance of RSV tests were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total subrecords) and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher published sensitivity (62.5%-100%) vs RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7%-100%); this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen vs molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher published sensitivity (66.7%-100%) and specificity (94.3%-100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (sensitivity: 25.7%-100%; specificity:80.3%-100%).

SUMMARY

This scoping review reveals a paucity of literature on studies of RSV tests in specific populations and settings, highlighting the need for further assessments. Considering the implications of these results in the current pandemic landscape, the authors preliminarily suggest adopting molecular-based RSV tests for first-line use in these settings.

Fast Track Diagnostic Tools for Clinical Management of Sepsis: Paradigm Shift from Conventional to Advanced Methods

Sepsis is one of the deadliest disorders in the new century due to specific limitations in early and differential diagnosis. Moreover, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is becoming the dominant threat to human health globally. The only way to encounter the spread and emergence of AMR is through the active detection and identification of the pathogen along with the quantification of resistance. For better management of such disease, there is an essential requirement to approach many suitable diagnostic techniques for the proper administration of antibiotics and elimination of these infectious diseases. The current method employed for the diagnosis of sepsis relies on the conventional culture of blood suspected infection. However, this method is more time consuming and generates results that are false negative in the case of antibiotic pretreated samples as well as slow-growing microbes. In comparison to the conventional method, modern methods are capable of analyzing blood samples, obtaining accurate results from the suspicious patient of sepsis, and giving all the necessary information to identify the pathogens as well as AMR in a short period. The present review is intended to highlight the culture shift from conventional to modern and advanced technologies including their limitations for the proper and prompt diagnosing of bloodstream infections and AMR detection.

Quality Management for Point-Of-Care Testing of Pathogen Nucleic Acids: Chinese Expert Consensus

COVID-19 continues to circulate globally in 2021, while under the precise policy implementation of China’s public health system, the epidemic was quickly controlled, and society and the economy have recovered. During the pandemic response, nucleic acid detection of SARS-CoV-2 has played an indispensable role in the first line of defence. In the cases of emergency operations or patients presenting at fever clinics, nucleic acid detection is required to be performed and reported quickly. Therefore, nucleic acid point-of-care testing (POCT) technology for SARS-CoV-2 identification has emerged, and has been widely carried out at all levels of medical institutions. SARS-CoV-2 POCT has served as a complementary test to conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) batch tests, thus forming an experimental diagnosis platform that not only guarantees medical safety but also improves quality services. However, in view of the complexity of molecular diagnosis and the biosafety requirements involved, pathogen nucleic acid POCT is different from traditional blood-based physical and chemical index detection. No guidelines currently exist for POCT quality management, and there have been inconsistencies documented in practical operation. Therefore, Shanghai Society of Molecular Diagnostics, Shanghai Society of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Microbiology Division of Shanghai Society of Microbiology and Shanghai Center for Clinical Laboratory have cooperated with experts in laboratory medicine to generate the present expert consensus. Based on the current spectrum of major infectious diseases in China, the whole-process operation management of pathogen POCT, including its application scenarios, biosafety management, personnel qualification, performance verification, quality control, and result reporting, are described here. This expert consensus will aid in promoting the rational application and robust development of this technology in public health defence and hospital infection management.

Point-of-care testing for influenza in a university emergency department: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza is a burden for emergency departments (ED). The aim of this study was to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

METHODS

Using a cross-over design, the cobas® Liat® Influenza A/B POC PCR test (Liat) was compared with standard clinical practice during the 2019/2020 influenza season. All adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with fever (≥38°C) and respiratory symptoms were included. Primary end points were the prevalence of influenza infections in the ED and staff sick days. Secondary end points were frequency of antiviral and antibacterial therapy, time between admission and test result or treatment initiation, patient disposition, ED length of stay (LOS), and for inpatients mortality and LOS. Nurses were interviewed about handling and integration of POC testing. The occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infections coincided with the second half of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 828 patients were enrolled in the study. All 375 patients of the intervention group were tested with Liat, and 103 patients of them (27.6%) tested positive. During the intervention period, staff sick days were reduced by 34.4% (P = .023). Significantly, more patients in the intervention group received antiviral therapy with neuraminidase inhibitors (7.2% vs 3.8%, P = .028) and tested patients received antibiotics more frequently (40.0% vs 31.6%, P = .033). Patients with POC test were transferred to external hospitals significantly more often (5.6% vs 1.3%, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that POC testing for influenza is useful in the ED, especially if it is heavily frequented by patients with respiratory symptoms.

Comparative practicability and analytical performances of Credo VitaPCR™ Flu A&B and Cepheid Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV platforms

To compare the practicability (usability and satisfaction) and analytical performances of VitaPCR™ Flu A&B Assay (Credo Diagnostics Biomedical Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Republic of Singapore) and Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV kit (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA), two rapid point-of-care (POC) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) by reference to multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. Nasopharyngeal swabs (n=117) were collected from patients with influenza-like illness in Paris, France. Thawed specimens were further analyzed with both NAATs. The usability was comparable for both NAATs. Satisfaction questionnaire was better for the VitaPCR™ platform for the short time of test result in 20 minutes. Both NAATs showed comparable sensitivities (VitaPCR^TM: 95.0%; Xpert® Xpress: 97.5%) and specificities (100%) for influenza A/B RNA detection, with excellent reliability and accuracy between both NAATs. Both VitaPCR™ and Xpert® Xpress NAATs can be implemented in hospital setting as POC NAATs to rapidly detect influenza A/B RNA in symptomatic patients.

Evaluation of a novel rapid TRC assay for the detection of influenza using nasopharyngeal swabs and gargle samples

We evaluated a novel transcription-reverse transcription concerted reaction (TRC) assay that can detect influenza A and B within 15 min using nasopharyngeal swab and gargle samples obtained from patients with influenza-like illness, between January and March 2018 and between January and March 2019. Based on the combined RT-PCR and sequencing results, in the nasal swabs, the sensitivity and specificity of TRC for detecting influenza were calculated as 1.000 and 1.000, respectively. In the gargle samples, the sensitivity and specificity of TRC were 0.946 and 1.000, respectively. The TRC assay showed comparable performance to RT-PCR in the detection of influenza viruses.

Clinical Performance of the Point-of-Care cobas Liat for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 20 Minutes: a Multicenter Study

Highly accurate testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the point of care (POC) is an unmet diagnostic need in emergency care and time-sensitive outpatient care settings. Reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) technology is the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Highly accurate testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the point of care (POC) is an unmet diagnostic need in emergency care and time-sensitive outpatient care settings. Reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) technology is the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. We performed a multisite U.S. study comparing the clinical performance of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized POC RT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 20 min, the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B nucleic acid test, to the most widely used RT-PCR laboratory test, the cobas 68/8800 SARS-CoV-2 test. Clinical nasopharyngeal swab specimens from 444 patients with 357 evaluable specimens at five U.S. clinical laboratories were enrolled from 21 September 2020 to 23 October 2020. The overall agreement between the Liat and 68/8800 systems for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics was 98.6% (352/357). Using Liat, positive percent agreement for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% (162/162) and the negative percent agreement was 97.4% (190/195). The Liat is an RT-PCR POC test that provides highly accurate SARS-CoV-2 results in 20 min with performance equivalent to that of high-throughput laboratory molecular testing. Rapid RT-PCR testing at the POC can enable more timely infection control and individual care decisions for coronavirus disease 2019.