The evaluation of the utility of the GENECUBE HQ SARS-CoV-2 for anterior nasal samples and saliva samples with a new rapid examination protocol

Development of a mobile laboratory system in hydrogen fuel cell buses and evaluation of the performance for COVID-19 RT-PCR testing

We designed and developed two new types of hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) buses (motorcoach and minibus) with a mobile laboratory system. Feasibility studies have been performed for mobile laboratory testing, particularly for the laboratory performance of COVID-19 RT-PCR (PCR). We evaluated the driving range capability, PCR sample size capacity, turnaround time (TAT), and analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Saliva samples were used for the current study, and the analytical performance was compared with that of the reference PCR. The estimated driving range and sample size capacity of the HFC and HFC minibus were 432 km and 2847 samples, respectively, for the HFC motorcoach and 313 km and 1949 samples for the HFC minibus. For the TAT, the median time between sample submission and completion of PCR was 86 min for the motorcoach and 76 min for the minibus, and the median time between sample submission and electronic reporting of the result to each visitor was 182 min for the motorcoach and 194 min for the minibus. A secondary analysis of 1574 HFC mobile laboratory testing samples was conducted, and all negative samples were found to be negative by reference PCR. Furthermore, all samples were confirmed to be positive by reference PCR or other molecular examinations.

Nasal discharge: A unique enhanced alternative for the detection of respiratory pathogens in adults

Upper respiratory tract infections are a significant cause of social- and disease burden worldwide. Currently, invasive and uncomfortable molecular detection methods are used for respiratory pathogen detection. We aimed to assess the ability and bearability of a rhinorrhea swab (RS) to detect respiratory pathogens in comparison to the combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NP/OP). This study was performed at a Public Health Service severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing facility between November and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Adults aged 16 years and older, being subjected to a standard of care NP/OP swab with nasal discharge, were included and received an additional RS. Respiratory pathogen detection was evaluated using SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) PCR. Bearability was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) scores and a questionnaire. A total of 100 adults with a mean age ± SD of 46 ± 16 years were included. The NP/OP swab detected 104 pathogens, the RS 83 pathogens (p < 0.001), and in total 108 respiratory pathogens were identified in 89 adults (89%). The ability to detect respiratory pathogens compared between the RS and the combined NP/OP swab revealed a sensitivity of 82% (95% CI 73%-89%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 72%-100%). RS were significantly more bearable than the combined NP/OP swab (p value < 0.001). Therefore, nasal discharge found in adults can be used as an adequate reliable medium for respiratory pathogen detection using SARS-CoV-2 PCR and MLPA PCR.

Prospective study of three saliva qualitative antigen testing kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among mainly symptomatic patients in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Rapid qualitative antigen testing has been widely used for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 with nasopharyngeal samples. Saliva samples have been used as alternative samples, but the analytical performance of those samples for qualitative antigen testing has not been sufficiently evaluated.

METHODS

A prospective observational study evaluated the analytical performance of three In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) approved COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits for saliva between June 2022 and July 2022 in Japan using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as a reference. A nasopharyngeal sample and a saliva sample were simultaneously obtained, and RT-qPCR was performed.

RESULTS

In total, saliva samples and nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 471 individuals (RT-qPCR-positive, n = 145) for the analysis. Of these, 96.6% were symptomatic. The median copy numbers were 1.7 × 106 copies/mL for saliva samples and 1.2 × 108 copies/mL for nasopharyngeal samples (p < 0.001). Compared with the reference, the sensitivity and specificity were 44.8% and 99.7% for ImunoAce SARS-CoV-2 Saliva, 57.2% and 99.1% for Espline SARS-CoV-2 N, and 60.0% and 99.1% for QuickChaser Auto SARS-CoV-2, respectively. The sensitivities of all antigen testing kit were 100% for saliva samples with a high viral load (>107 copies/mL), whereas the sensitivities were <70% for high-viral-load nasopharyngeal samples (>107 copies/mL).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits with saliva showed high specificity, but the sensitivity varied among kits, and were also insufficient for the detection of symptomatic COVID-19 patients.

Analytical performance of the rapid qualitative antigen kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during widespread circulation of the Omicron variant

INTRODUCTION

Rapid qualitative antigen testing is essential in the clinical management of COVID-19. However, most evaluations of antigen tests have been performed before the emergence of the Omicron variant.

METHODS

This prospective observational study evaluated QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, a rapid antigen detection test between December 2021 and February 2022 in Japan, using real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR as a reference. Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen testing and for RT-PCR. Variant analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing was also performed.

RESULTS

In total, nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 1073 participants (417 positive; 919 symptomatic; 154 asymptomatic) for analysis. Compared with those of RT-PCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.2% (95% CI: 91.6%-96.3%), 99.5% (95% CI: 98.7%-99.9%), 99.2% (95% CI: 97.8%-99.8%), and 96.5% (95% CI: 94.8%-97.7%), respectively. The sensitivity among symptomatic individuals was 94.3% (95% CI: 91.5%-96.4%). Overall, 85.9% of sequences were classified as Omicron sublineage BA.1, 12.4% were Omicron sublineage BA.2, and 1.6% were Delta B.1.617.2. (Delta variant). Most of the samples (87.1%) had Ct values of <25, and the sensitivity was 47.4% for low viral load samples (Ct ≥ 30); a similar trend has been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag test showed sufficient diagnostic performance for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 from nasopharyngeal samples. However, the current study was mainly performed in symptomatic patients and the results are not sufficiently applicable for asymptomatic patients.